CITY COUNCIL Monday June 20, 2011 MEETING … - 2011-06-20 Council Meeting.pdfDan Grausz CITY MANAGER ... employee Lindell. He believes the City has stalled the lawsuit over the past

MAYOR Jim Pearman

DEPUTY MAYOR El Jahncke

COUNCILMEMBERS Bruce Bassett Jane Brahm Mike Cero Mike Grady Dan Grausz

CITY MANAGER Rich Conrad

All meetings are held in the City Hall Council Chambers unless otherwise noticed

COUNCIL CHAMBERS 9611 SE 36th Street Mercer Island, WA

PHONE 206.275.7600

EMAIL [email protected]

WEB www.mercergov.org

REGULAR MEETING

CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 7:00 pm

SPECIAL BUSINESS ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 7:01 pm (1) Day of Play and Parks & Recreation Month Proclamations

APPEARANCES ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 7:05 pm

This is the time set aside for members of the public to speak to the City Council about any issues of concern. If you wish to speak, please consider the following points:

1. speak audibly into the podium microphone, 2. state your name and address for the record, and 3. limit your comments to three minutes.

MINUTES ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 7:15 pm (2) Special Meeting Minutes of June 2, 2011

Study Session & Regular Meeting Minutes of June 6, 2011

CONSENT CALENDAR ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 7:17 pm

(3) Payables: $226,833.40 (6/2/2011) & $532,613.38 (6/9/2011)

Payroll: $640,499.81 (6/17/2011)

(4) AB 4647 Pioneer Park & SE 53rd Open Space Vegetation Work Bid Award

REGULAR BUSINESS

(5) AB 4641 Island Crest Way Pedestrian Signal Bid Award (no presentation) ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 7:20 pm

(6) AB 4649 Shoreline Master Program Update: Focusing on New Overwater

Structures and Dredging ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 7:35 pm (7) AB 4648 Planning Commission Work Plan ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 9:05 pm

OTHER BUSINESS ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 9:35 pm

Councilmember Absences Planning Schedule Board Appointments Councilmember Reports

ADJOURNMENT‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 9:45 pm

Agenda times are approximate

CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA

Monday

June 20, 2011

7:00 pm

APPEARANCES: This is the time set aside for members of the public to speak to the Mayor and City Council about any issues of concern. Unless the item you wish to discuss is of an emergency nature, the Council ordinary takes matters under advisement before taking action. If you wish to speak, please consider the following points: speak audibly into the podium microphone, state your name and address for the record, and limit your comments to three minutes.

CONSENT CALENDAR: This is a means to streamline Council meeting procedures by collecting the routine, non‐controversial items into a group whereby all are passes with a single motion and vote. Each City Council agenda includes, but is not limited by this reference: final approval of leases and contracts, final acceptance of grants, deeds or easements, setting dates for public hearings, approval of change orders, payable and payroll sheets, and other routine items as the City Manager may deem appropriate.

If separate discussion of any Consent Calendar item is desired, that item may be removed from the Consent Calendar at the request of any Councilmember. At the conclusion of passage of the Consent Calendar, those items removed shall be discussed and acted upon before proceeding to the next item of business or shall be set to a later position on the agenda of that meeting.

EMERGENCY MEETING: In case of an emergency or the likelihood of an emergency involving injury or damage to persons or property, the special meeting notice may be dispensed with when the time requirements would make notice impractical and increase the likelihood of such injury or damage. RCW 42.30.080. The special meeting notice should be sent to “The Mercer Island Reporter” and placed in the lobby of the building where the meeting is usually held. When a special meeting is called for a date and time that makes it impossible to send a written notice by mail or facsimile and afford a 24‐hour notice, the people on the special meeting list who were not in attendance when the special meeting was announced should be called. Notes should be kept of the names of the people called and the time and date of the call.

EXECUTIVE SESSION: Executive Sessions are held to discuss personnel, property or litigation matters and are limited to Council members and any additional persons deemed appropriate by the presiding officer. Prior to convening the Executive Session the Mayor or chairperson must announce the purpose and approximate length of the Executive Session. Discussions are not recorded or reported and actions must be announced in open session.

ORDINANCE: Ordinances are legislative acts of local laws. They are the most permanently and binding form of Council action and may be changed or repealed only by a subsequent ordinance. Ordinances normally become effective five days after they are published in the City's official newspaper. An ordinance will generally prescribe permanent rules of conduct or government.

PLANNING SCHEDULE: The planning schedule is a quarterly calendar that reflects upcoming Council meetings and proposed items of discussion.

PROCLAMATION: The purpose of a proclamation is to recognize the efforts of a particular group or increase awareness of an activity. The Mayor determines whether to issue a proclamation. They are written by staff and usually announced at a City Council meeting; however, the Mayor can issue a proclamation without Council approval.

PUBLIC HEARING: Public Hearings are public meetings. They are a formal opportunity for citizens to give their views for consideration in the decision‐making process. Public Hearings can be held either in regular session or at a special meeting after proper notice. Public Hearings provide the Council with views on either side of issues.

RESOLUTION: Resolutions act as less solemn or formal rules and generally are simply an expression of the opinion of the Council.

SPECIAL MEETING: Any meeting that it is not held at the regular time, place or location is a Special Meeting. Written notice of the time and place of a Special Meeting must be received at lease 24 hours in advance by the members of the body and the news media. Special Meetings are open to the public. Special meetings are also public meetings. Written notification of special meetings can be dispensed with when there is an emergency. The notice shall contain the date, time and place of the meeting, as well as subject matter to be considered. The description of the business is very important because the body is precluded from making any final disposition of matter not included in the published notice of the business to be transacted.

STUDY SESSION: These work sessions are generally held by the City Council on the first Monday of the month prior to its regular meeting. The study sessions begin at 6:00 pm, last about 60 minutes, and may be held at a site other than City Hall. The Council takes no formal action during this time.

D E F I N I T I O N S

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, those requiring accommodation for this meeting should notify the City Clerk’s Office at least 24 hours

prior to the meeting at 206.275.7793.

City of Mercer Island City Council Meeting Minutes June 20, 2011 1

CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL

Deputy Mayor El Jahncke called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:00 pm in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 9611 SE 36th Street, Mercer Island, Washington. Councilmembers Bruce Bassett, Jane Brahm, Mike Cero, Mike Grady (arrived 7:02 pm), Dan Grausz and Deputy Mayor Jahncke were present. Mayor Jim Pearman was absent.

SPECIAL BUSINESS

Day of Play and Parks & Recreation Month Proclamations

Deputy Mayor El Jahncke read two proclamations designating September 24, 2011 as a Day of Play and July 2011 as Parks and Recreation Month in Mercer Island.

APPEARANCES

Paul J. Crane, spoke about a neighbor who stages a business in his home which he believes violates the statutes

and codes of a strictly residential area. Marty Gale, 9404 SE 54th Street, spoke about attending a hearing in the Lindell lawsuit. She spoke about

document available from the Federal Court database. She questioned how many Councilmembers have read the documents. She provided an overview of her account of the timeline regarding the lawsuit. She believes it is time to terminate the contract of the City Manager.

Ira Appelman, 6213 83rd Place SE, spoke about a tentative settlement agreement in the lawsuit with former

employee Lindell. He believes the City has stalled the lawsuit over the past three years. He spoke about a report that was released regarding a 2003 sexual harassment investigation that he will be circulating to Island residents. He spoke about petitioning the legislature for changes to prevent City Councils and City Managers from investigating themselves.

Alan Foltz, Waterfront Construction, 205 NE Northlake Way, Suite 230, Seattle, spoke about allowing dredging to

remove sediment and silt on north end of the Island. MINUTES

Special Meeting Minutes of June 2, 2011

It was moved by Grady; seconded by Brahm to: Adopt the Special Meeting Minutes of June 2, 2011 as written. Passed 6-0 FOR: 6 (Bassett, Cero, Grady, Grausz, Jahncke, Brahm) ABSENT: 1 (Pearman)

Study Session & Regular Meeting Minutes of June 6, 2011

It was moved by Grady; seconded by Brahm to: Adopt the Study Session & Regular Meeting Minutes of June 6, 2011 as written.

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JUNE 20, 2011


Passed 6-0 FOR: 6 (Bassett, Cero, Grady, Grausz, Jahncke, Brahm) ABSENT: 1 (Pearman)

CONSENT CALENDAR

Councilmember Grausz moved AB 4647: Pioneer Park & SE 53rd Open Space Vegetation Work Bid Award to the first item of Regular Business.

Payables: $226,833.40 (6/2/2011) & $532,613.38 (6/9/2011)

Recommendation: Certify that the materials or services hereinbefore specified have been received and that all warrant numbers listed are approved for payment.

Payroll: $640,499.81 (6/17/2011)

Recommendation: Certify that the materials or services specified have been received and that all fund warrants are approved for payment.

It was moved by Bassett; seconded by Brahm to: Approve the Consent Calendar and the recommendations contained therein. Passed 6-0 FOR: 6 (Bassett, Cero, Grady, Grausz, Jahncke, Brahm) ABSENT: 1 (Pearman)

REGULAR BUSINESS

AB 4647: Pioneer Park & SE 53rd Open Space Vegetation Work Bid Award

Councilmember Grausz asked about the recommendation not to do Alternate A and about the carryover that was to be spent in 2011.

It was moved by Brahm; seconded by Grady to: Award the base project of Pioneer Park/SE 53rd Open Space Vegetation Work project to Northwest Landscape Services, LLC in the amount of $167,595.23, set the total project budget at $203,320.00 and direct the City Manager to execute the contract.Passed 6-0 FOR: 6 (Bassett, Cero, Grady, Grausz, Jahncke, Brahm) ABSENT: 1 (Pearman)

AB 4641: Island Crest Way Pedestrian Signal Bid Award (no presentation)

It was moved by Cero; seconded by Grausz to: Award the Island Crest Way Pedestrian Signals project to Judge Electrical Construction in the amount of $249,352, set the total project budget at $395,248, and direct the City Manager to execute the construction contract. Passed 6-0 FOR: 6 (Bassett, Cero, Grady, Grausz, Jahncke, Brahm) ABSENT: 1 (Pearman)

AB 4649: Shoreline Master Program Update: Focusing on New Overwater Structures and Dredging

The Deputy Mayor opened the public hearing at 7:24 pm. There were no comments and the public hearing was closed.

Development Services Director Tim Stewart presented information to the Council regarding the major issues with new dock widths, new covered moorages and dredging in fish span areas as well as alternatives for the Council to discuss.


It was moved by Cero; seconded by Jahncke to: Retain the Planning Commission’s recommendation of an 8’ minimum dock width. Failed 3-3 FOR: 3 (Cero, Jahncke, Brahm) AGAINST: 3 (Bassett, Grady, Grausz) ABSENT: 1 (Pearman)

It was moved by Grausz; seconded by Grady to: Reduce the minimum dock width to 4’ within the first 30’ waterward from the OHWM and 8’ thereafter. Passed 5-1 FOR: 5 (Bassett, Grady, Grausz, Jahncke, Brahm) AGAINST: 1 (Cero) ABSENT: 1 (Pearman)

It was moved by Grausz; seconded by Cero to: Retain the Planning Commission’s recommendation that new covered moorages are permitted with specific conditions with the caveat that Figure A will be amended to reflect the 30 foot from the highwater mark requirement. Passed 6-0 FOR: 6 (Bassett, Cero, Grady, Grausz, Jahncke, Brahm) ABSENT: 1 (Pearman)

It was moved by Grausz; seconded by Cero to: Allow for a narrow exception to dredging in fish spawn areas if it can be conclusively demonstrated that fish habitat will be significantly improved as a result of the project and amend 19.07.110(E)(8)(e) to add the words "Dredging and" to the beginning of the section. Passed 6-0 FOR: 6 (Bassett, Cero, Grady, Grausz, Jahncke, Brahm) ABSENT: 1 (Pearman)

AB 4648: Planning Commission Work Plan

It was moved by Bassett; seconded by Brahm to: Accept the proposed 2011 Planning Commission Work Plan. Passed 6-0 FOR: 6 (Bassett, Cero, Grady, Grausz, Jahncke, Brahm) ABSENT: 1 (Pearman)

OTHER BUSINESS

Councilmember Absences

Mayor Pearman's absence was excused. Councilmember Grady will be absent July 5. Councilmember Bassett will be absent July 5 and July 18.

Planning Schedule Councilmember Grausz asked adding the Parking on the Mercer Ways agenda item. Councilmember Bassett asked if the Sewer Lake Line Disposition discussion could be moved to August.

Board Appointments It was moved by Brahm; seconded by Grady to: Confirm the Mayor’s 2011 Board & Commission appointments as follows:

Arts Council Christine Lewis, Position 1, Term 2015 Sandy Glass, Position 2, Term 2015 Jane Ditzler, Position 3, Term 2015 Design Commission


Susanne Foster, Position 1, Term 2015 Jon Andersen, Position 3, Term 2014 Planning Commission Steve Marshall, Position 1, Term 2015 Bryan Cairns, Position 2, Term 2015 Richard Weinman, Position 7, Term 2014 Youth & Family Services Advisory Board (Adult) Donna Ellis, Position 9, Term 2014 Rachel Reynolds, Position 10, Term 2014 Kenneth Urmand, Position 11, Term 2014 David Rose, Position 12, Term 2014 Youth & Family Services Advisory Board (Youth) Danielle Katsman (2015) Cristina Scalzo (2013) Julia Davis (2013) Andrea Hatsukami (2013)

Passed 6-0 FOR: 6 (Bassett, Cero, Grady, Grausz, Jahncke, Brahm) ABSENT: 1 (Pearman)

Councilmember Reports Councilmember Cero spoke about the Renton Airport Advisory Committee meeting. Councilmember Grady gave an Electric Vehicle Taskforce update. Councilmember Bassett spoke about the Eastside Transportation Partnership meeting and the Farmers

Market. Councilmember Brahm spoke about the AWC Conference and the Summer Celebration cruise.

ADJOURNMENT The Regular Meeting was adjourned at 9:24 pm.

_______________________________ El Jahncke, Deputy Mayor Attest: _________________________________ Allison Spietz, City Clerk

Page 1

BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MERCER ISLAND, WA

AB 4649

June 20, 2011 Regular Business

SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE: FOCUSING ON NEW OVERWATER STRUCTURES AND DREDGING

Proposed Council Action: Advance Resolition No. 1440.

DEPARTMENT OF Development Services Group (Tim Stewart)

COUNCIL LIAISON El Jahncke

EXHIBITS 1. Resolution No. 1440 Expressing Intent to Adopt and Update of the Shoreline Master Program and Authorizing the Submittal to the Washington State Department of Ecology including proposed SMP (as provided in AB 4632, 4/25/2011)

APPROVED BY CITY MANAGER

AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE $ n/a

AMOUNT BUDGETED $ n/a

APPROPRIATION REQUIRED $ n/a SUMMARY BACKGROUND The City Council has previously addressed the Planning Commission’s recommended Shoreline Master Program (SMP) update on April 25 (Overview), May 2 (Public Hearing), May 17 (Existing Overwater Structures) and June 6, 2011 (Landward Structures, Setbacks and Landscaping). The Council has added new standards for the replacement of overwater structures to the Planning Commission’s recommendations. The purpose of this Agenda Bill is to focus upon new overwater structures and dredging. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION At the June 6, 2011 meeting, Council asked for clarification about the number of vacant waterfront lots that might be expected to develop. In a report provided to the Planning Commission (September 16, 2009), ten (10) waterfront lots were identified as potentially available for development. With the approval last week of the consolidation of the three Nordstrom lots into one lot (via the “Shoreclift Long Plat” Alteration), the result is that the Island currently has eight (8) lots that might develop in the future. And a number of these lots, while potentially developable, appear to be currently used as the expansive yards of existing homes. NEW OVERWATER STRUCTURES In addition to the SMP, new overwater structures are regulated by the Federal and State governments, which typically required the standards described in the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) RGP-3 standards. However, evidence has also been provided to the Planning Commission and the City Council that the ACE has more commonly approved individual permits for overwater structures that do not include all of the

Page 2

standards described in the RGP-3 standards. The ACE provides flexibility for individual permits for new overwater structures. The Planning Commission established specific limitation on types of overwater uses that are permitted such as moorage facilities, covered moorages and utilities; as well as the types of uses that are not permitted, such as boat houses and floating homes (see Binder, page 11). The Commission also included specific standards for new overwater structures which are consistent with, or typically allowed to be deviated from, the ACE RGP-3 standards, including surface coverage area, grating (with 40% light transmittal), vegetation standards, width of the structure, pile locations, material standards and work windows to address fish migration (see Binder pages 22-24). The Commission also included “Alternative Development Standards” if an applicant demonstrated that the proposed project will not create a net loss in ecological functions of the shorelands and provided documentation of approval by both the ACE and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) (see Binder page 24). DREDGING The Planning Commission’s proposed regulation also provide specific standards for dredging and prohibits dredging in fish spawn areas and in unique environments such as Mercer Island’s underwater forest (see Binder, page 24). MAJOR ISSUES

1. New Dock Widths The Planning Commission struggled with the issue of dock widths. The current average width of existing docks on Mercer Island is slightly less than 8’. The Commission received comments from the Department of Ecology that “Ecology will require a maximum moorage width to be 4’ within the first 30’ waterward from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) with a 6’ width beyond that point” (see Binder, page 4). The Planning Commission received and evaluated a huge amount of information related to the impacts of light and shade on salmon and bass populations. The Commission stated: “After careful consideration of all of the facts, the Planning Commission is unconvinced there would be a net loss of shoreline ecological function in comparing an 8’ grated dock with a 4’ or 6’ grated dock and has concluded that no scientific or quantitative relationship between residential dock coverage and significant smolt survival has been conclusively demonstrated” (Binder, page 4).

2. New Covered Moorages The Planning Commission recommends that new covered moorages be

permitted with specific standards including regulations that translucent canopies be required (see Binder, page 18). Ecology has informed the City that most jurisdictions updating their SMPs prohibit covered moorages and that covered moorages are discouraged by Ecology, the ACE and WDFW. Furthermore, Ecology has stated that if covered moorages are allowed, they should be constructed in a north-south rather than and east west orientation. The Planning Commission found, after review of the information on covered moorage, and testimony provided, that many other local jurisdictions do allow for canopies, that potential impacts could be mitigated with translucent canopies, a north-south direction may have larger impacts (due to fish migration patterns) and that covered moorages have a long and well established tradition on Mercer Island, thus recommending they continue to be permitted (see Binder page 5).

3. Dredging in Fish Spawn Areas An issue which received little attention during the Planning

Commission review is the issue of allowing for an exception to the outright prohibition on dredging in fish spawning areas, even if it can be conclusively demonstrated that the post dredging condition will result in improved fish habitat (see SMP Issue Information Request #1: Al Foltz, Waterfront Construction).

Page 3

ALTERNATIVES

1. New Dock Widths: a. Retain the Planning Commission’s recommendation of an 8’ minimum dock width

(understanding that Federal and State permits may require a narrower width). b. Reduce the minimum dock width to 6’. c. Reduce the minimum dock width to 4’ within the first 30’ waterward from the OHWM and 6’

thereafter. d. Reduce the minimum dock width to 4’ within the first 30’ waterward from the OHWM and 6’

thereafter, with a provision that the 4’ standard in the first 30’ may be increased with additional conditions.

2. New Covered Moorages: a. Retain the Planning Commission’s recommendation that new covered moorages are

permitted with specific conditions. b. Prohibit new covered moorages.

3. Dredging in Fish Spawn Areas: a. Retain the Planning Commission’s recommendation that all dredging in fish spawn areas be

prohibited, without exception. b. Allow for a narrow exception to dredging in fish spawn areas if it can be conclusively

demonstrated that fish habitat will be significantly improved as a result of the project. NEXT STEPS On August 1, 2011 Council is scheduled to vote on Resolution No. 1440 “Expressing Intent to Adopt and Update of the Shoreline Master Program and Authorizing the Submittal to the Washington State Department of Ecology.” Following Ecology’s formal review, the City will enter into negotiations with Ecology regarding any outstanding issues and then return to Council, probably at the end of this year or in the first quarter of 2012, for additional discussions and decision on the final SMP. RECOMMENDATION

Development Services Director MOVE TO: Advance Resolution 1440, Intent to Adopt and Update to the SMP, to the August 1, 2011

Council Meeting. Alternative: Advance Resolution 1440 and provide staff with direction to develop language for an

alternative(s), for review at the August 1, 2011 Council Meeting.

CITY OF MERCER ISLAND RESOLUTION NO. 1440

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MERCER ISLAND, WASHINGTON EXPRESSING THE INTENT TO ADOPT AN UPDATE OF THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF THIS PROPOSED SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE TO THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY

WHEREAS, the State of Washington (90.58 RCW) has mandated that the City of Mercer Island update the Mercer Island SMP; WHEREAS, the update of the Mercer Island SMP has been complex: the State has published 288 pages of laws, rules and guidance governing the process and substance of this update; WHEREAS, the update of the Mercer Island SMP has been contentious: sharply focusing the divide between the values of environmental advocates and the values of advocates for private property rights; WHEREAS, the City’s proposed SMP must be approved by the State Deparment of Ecology (DOE); WHEREAS, before approval, the Director of DOE must formally conclude that the proposed SMP, when implemented over it’s planning horizon, typically 20 years, will result in “no net loss of ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline natural functions”; WHEREAS, a Shoreline Analysis Report, conducted by qualified professionals, has concluded that all of Mercer Island’s shorelines, with the exception of the shorelines at Luther Burbank Park, have “Low Ecological Functions”; WHEREAS, the City held a public open house on May 19, 2009; WHEREAS, the City issued a Notice of Application for a Zoning Text Amendment and a SEPA Checklist on February 22, 2010 (ZTR10-001/SEP10-002); WHEREAS, the City issued a SEPA Threshold Determination of Non-Significance on March 15, 2010; WHEREAS, the Mercer Island Planning Commission has conducted 29 public meetings, including two public hearings, during the SMP update process, and issued it’s Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations (Attachment A) on April 6, 2011; WHEREAS, the Mercer Island Planning Commission has conducted extensive and careful review and analysis of the most current, accurate and complete scientific information available regarding the shorelines of Lake Washington, within the shoreline jurisdiction of Mercer Island, and has concluded that the proposed SMP, when implemented over the next 20 years, will result in no net loss of these ecological functions; WHEREAS, the Mercer Island Planning Commission’s recommendation has been carefully integrated within the Mercer Island’s regulatory structure, and is complimentary to other Federal and State rules and regulations; WHEREAS, the Mercer Island Planning Commission believes that the proposed SMP meets the needs of our community by balancing the protection of the environment with the protection of private property rights;and

Resolution No. 1440 Page 1

WHEREAS, The Mercer Island City Council has carefully considered the information in the record, and conducted a public hearing on May 2, 2011; and WHEREAS, The Mercer Island City Council agrees with the Findings and Conclusions of the Mercer Island Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERCER ISLAND, WASHINGTON, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Statement of Intent to Adopt the Mercer Island Shoreline Master Program Update The Mercer Island City Council intends to adopt Exhibits 1-5 of Attachement A upon approval from the Washington State Department of Ecology. Section 2: Authorization to Submit the Mercer Island Shoreline Master Program Update to

the Washington State Department of Ecology The City Manager is hereby authorized to submit the Mercer Island Shoreline Master Program Update (including this Resolution and all other required submittal documents) to the Washington State Department of Ecology for approval. THIS RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERCER ISLAND, WASHINGTON, AT ITS REGULAR MEETING ON THE ______ DAY OF ____________, 2011. CITY OF MERCER ISLAND _________________________________ Jim Pearman, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Allison Spietz, City Clerk

Resolution No. 1440 Page 2

CITY OF MERCER ISLAND PLANNING COMMISSION, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL

FOR THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM ADOPTION

April 6, 2011

Project: ZTR10-001/SEP10-002

Description: Recommendation to the Mercer Island City Council for the adoption of the 2011 City of Mercer Island Shoreline Master Program which includes amendments to the Mercer Island City Code Sections 19.07.100, 19.07.110, 19.15.010, and 19.16.010, MICC Title 19 – Appendix F (Shoreline Environmental Designation Map), Shoreline Master Program Policies and the Shoreline Restoration Plan in order to make the Mercer Island Municipal Code compliant with the WA State Shoreline Management Act, as required by RCW 90.58.080.

Applicant: City of Mercer Island

Location: City of Mercer Island

I. FINDINGS 1. The State of Washington has mandated that the City of Mercer Island update the Shoreline

Master Program (SMP), which establishes policy, regulates structures and uses waterward and 200’ landward from the shore of Lake Washington and establishes plans for restoration of the shoreline.

2. Structures and uses in Lake Washington are regulated by a wide variety of Federal and State agencies, in addition to the regulations in the SMP, including the Federal Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WSDFW).

3. Structures and uses 200’ landward from Lake Washington are regulated by a number of provisions of the Mercer Island Unified Development Code including height, bulk, impervious surfaces, tree protection ordinance and critical areas ordinance (CAO), including wetlands and geohazard areas, as well as storm water quality and quantity (NPDES) and building codes.

4. The state SMP mandate is extremely complex: with the State publishing 288 pages of SMP laws, rules and guidance.1

5. The state SMP mandate is confusing: the ill defined relationship between the SMP (State Department of Ecology) and the Growth Management Act (State Department of Commerce) has resulted in litigation (see “Futurewise v. Anacortes. 164 Wn.2d 2008) and additional legislation (see Engrossed House Bill 1653, 2010). As one commenter noted: “The source of the confusion is regulatory overlap. Both the CAO and the SMP protect environmental resources within the Shoreline.”

2

1 The law (RCW 90.58) is 32 pages; the rules (WAC 173-26) are 78 pages and the guidance (The SMP Handbook) is currenty 178 pages, with ongoing updates and changes.

2 Olbrechts, Phil “Futurewise v. Anacortes: What was the Court Thinking?” Environmental and Land Use Law Journal, May 2009.

Resolution No. 1440 - Attachment A Page 1

6. The state SMP mandate is contentious sharply focusing the disagreement and dispute between environmental advocates and advocates for private property rights.

7. The state SMP mandate is also evolving as court rulings are issued, legislative actions adopted3

8. Staff conservatively estimates that the cost of Mercer Island’s SMP effort has been $523,168 to date. The state provided a grant to the City of Mercer Island in the amount of $150,000

and as the Department of Ecology (DOE) establishes precedent as it approves local SMPs and modifies the SMP Handbook.

4. Staff estimates that $385,840 in staff and other costs, plus $75,000 in consultant costs, has been used by the City in support of this effort.5 In addition, the value of volunteer time by the Planning Commissioners is estimated by staff to be $62,3286

9. The process of approval of Mercer Island’s SMP requires that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council for action. Following Council action, the SMP is forwarded to DOE, who may conduct a new public hearing, for review. Typically, DOE will respond to a city’s submittal with required changes and suggested changes. The City then enters into negotiations with DOE. If negotiations are successful, the City will then adopt the final SMP, including regulations, and the new program and regulations will take effect. If the negotiations are not successful, DOE may impose SMP regulations upon the City. The City would then have the opportunity to appeal the DOE action.

. The value of community involvement and participation has not been estimated, but has been invaluable. The current net cost to the City of Mercer Island, after deducting the state grant, is estimated to be $ 373,168 to date.

10. One standard that DOE will use in reviewing the City’s SMP is to find that the program, in total, will result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline resources.7

11. The Planning Commission has conducted 29 public meetings, including two public hearings, in developing this recommendation.

12. The Planning Commission heard hours of testimony and received thousands of pages of written documents including studies8

3 For example, state law had stated that the SMP shall provide a level of protection to critical areas located within shorelines of the state (Lake Washington) that “is at least equal to the level of protection provided to critical areas by the local government’s critical area ordinances”. With adoption of HB 1653 (2010), the level of protection was changed to “assures no net loss of shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline resources as defined by department of ecology guidelines.”

during its review process. Planning Commission agendas, staff reports and written documents are available to Council and will be posted on the City’s Website.

4 The 2007 State Grant was divided: $75,000 for consultants; $75,000 for city staff costs and expenses. 5 Average of 4 staff at 5 hours per week for 3.5 years @ $106 per hour (City approved hourly billing rate) equals

$385,840. 6 Average of 6 Commissioners per meeting (3.5hrs) for 29 meetings @ $106 per hour equals $64,554. 7 To approve a comprehensive SMP update, Ecology’s Director must formally conclude that the proposed SMP,

when implemented over its planning horizon, typically 20 years, will result in “no net loss of ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline natural resources” SMP Handbook, Chapter 4, page 5, 6/22/10.

8 Including but not limited to: Tabor, RA, et al. 2007 Smallmouth Bass and Largemouth Bass Predation on Juvenile Salmon and Other Salmonids in the Lake Washington Basin. North American Fisheries Management, 27-1174-1188. Kerwin, J. 2001 Salmon and steelhead habitat limiting factors report for the Cedar-Sammamish Basin (Water Resource Inventory Area 8), Washington Conservation Commission, Olympia WA. Lohn, D. Robert, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, Endangered Species Act-Section 7 Consultation Final Biological Opinion, September 22, 2008. Pauley, Gilbert, PhD, Shoreline Master Plan Science, presentation to the Planning Commission, May 5, 2010. Futurewise, Recommendations on Making Small Shoreline Buffers Work with Buffer Science, March 2010, Futurewise, Recommendations for Incorporating Restoration Planning in SMPS, undated. Kahler, Tom, et al. Final Report Summary of the Effects of Bulkheads, Piers, and Other Artificial


13. Many of the comments received during the Planning Commission process were conflicting, frequently exhibiting the opposing values between environmental and property rights advocates9

14. In reaching its final recommendation, and after careful and diligent review of all relevant information, the Planning Commission believes the proposed SMP has achieved a balance between the public interest and private property rights, satisfying the state SMP mandate of no net loss.

.

15. The Planning Commission received, reviewed, evaluated and formed a consensus recommendation on all of the many issues presented during review. The following questions will likely emerge during the discussion and debate at the City Council: a. Replacement of legally existing structures. Should legally existing overwater structures and

structures 25’ landward of the shoreline be allowed to be maintained, repaired and completely replaced?

b. Optional Standards. Should the City SMP allow for alternative development standards? When optional standards are applied waterward: 1) the applicant demonstrates no net loss and (2) the alternative is approved by both the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. When optional standards are applied landward, for a Shoreline Variance or Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, no net loss must be demonstrated and may be consolidated using the substantive authority of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).

c. Structures Waterward of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) especially in the First 30’. Within the first 30’ waterward from OHWM, would a dock width of 8’ or the installation of a boat lift create an unmitigated “net loss” of shoreline ecological function?

d. Setback and Vegetation Standards Landward from the OHWM. Should the setback and vegetation standards be increased or decreased?

e. Covered Moorages. Should covered moorages be permitted? 16. Replacement of legally existing structures. The Planning Commission recommends that all

legally existing overwater structures and landward structures within 25’ of the OHWM be allowed to be maintained and repaired, and to be completely replaced to the extent that non-conformance with the standards and regulations is not increased.10

Structures and Shorezone Development on ESA-listed Salmonids in Lakes, prepared for the City of Bellevue, July 13, 2000.Cappiella and Schueler, Crafting a Lake Protection Ordinance, Urban Lake Management. DOE and WDFW Wetlands in Washington State, Volume !: A Synthesis of the Science, March 2005. Knutson and Naef Management Recommendations for Washington’s Priority Habits: Riparian, WDFW, December, 1997. Carrasquero, Jose Over-Water Structures: Freshwater Issues, WDFW, April 12, 2001.

The rationale for this recommendation is that all legally existing structures form the “baseline” from which “no net loss” is measured. The complete replacement of a structure, in kind, would therefore not result in any loss of shoreline ecological function. The City has the option to require that repaired or replaced structures meet the same development standards as new construction. This is not the Planning Commission’s recommendation. The Planning Commission recommends that the City achieve no net loss over time by regulating the impacts of new and expanded structures while

9 This conflict has been recognized within the State Policy Enunciated in the Legislative Findings of the SMP “…to protect the public interest associated with the shorelines of the state while, at the same time, recognizing and protecting private property rights consistent with the public interest” RCW 90.58.020. “The policy goals for the management of the shorelines harbor potential for conflict” WAC 173-26-176(2).

10 Draft MICC 19.07.110(B)(1).


allowing existing docks to be repaired and replaced in kind, indefinitely.11

17. Optional Standards. The proposed SMP regulations

This SMP rule would only apply narrowly in the shoreline jurisdiction and would not change the City’s non-conformity rule regarding the reconstruction of non-conforming structures for the rest of the Island, outside of the area within 25’ of the OHWM.

12 authorize optional flexible standards. Many of the standards included in the Draft SMP regulations follow standards established by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE)13 and used by the City of Kirkland’s SMP which has been approved by DOE. The Planning Commission recommends that optional standards be included as a fundamental element of the Mercer Island SMP regulations. The rationale for including this provision is that the ACOE frequently approves individual permits which do not strictly comply with its published standards. The Planning Commission believes that the City’s SMP regulations should not be more restrictive than the requirements of the Federal Government and should provide flexibility when a development proposal is approved by the Federal Government and appropriate State Agencies such as the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and demonstrates no net loss to the city. One primary source of confusion in shoreline regulations is the bewildering array of federal, state and local regulations and permits. By including an optional flexible standard in the City’s SMP regulations this regulatory burden is significantly eased. As the draft SMP states, the provisions of Mercer Island’s SMP regulations “shall not relieve any responsibility to comply with other Federal and State laws or permits”14

18. Structures Waterward of the Ordinary High Water Mark, especially in the first 30’. The State DOE has stated that “Ecology will require maximum moorage width to be 4 feet within the first 30 waterward of the OHWM with a 6’ width beyond that point”.

.

15 The existing SMP allows docks up to 8’ wide with no distinction for the first 30’. The Planning Commission recommends a maximum width of 8’16 which “must be fully grated with materials that allow a minimum of 40% light transmittance”.17

19. Setbacks and Vegetation Standards Landward from the OHWM. The Planning Commission recommends that the existing 25’ setback be retained landward from the OHWM with an added

The Planning Commission received and evaluated a huge amount of information related to the impact of light and shade on salmon and bass populations. After careful consideration of all the facts, the Planning Commission is unconvinced there would be a net loss of shoreline ecological function in comparing an 8’ grated dock with a 4’ or 6’ grated dock and has concluded that no scientific or quantitative relationship between residential dock coverage and significant smolt survival has been conclusively demonstrated. For example, juvenile salmonids are most abundant at stream mouths which are not generally present on Mercer Island. In addition, the studies most specific to South Lake Washington and bass predation concluded that residential dock shading was not a significant factor. The Commission received and evaluated a number of comments from waterfront property owners supporting an 8’ maximum width.

11 The ACOE and WSDFW already impose project specific restrictions and mitigation sequencing on overwater repairs and replacements. The Planning Commission recognizes that existing state and federal regulations will create net ecological gains when existing structures are repaired and replaced. Duplication by the City of the state and federal regulators highly complex and property specific controls is unnecessary to meet no net loss and would be impractical for the City’s staff to administer.

12 Draft MICC 19.07.110(B)(2)(b) and 19.07.110(E)(6). 13Regional General Permit (RPG-3), successor permit or standard practices. 14 Draft MICC 19.07.110(A)(5) 15 Letter from Barbara Nightingale, Regional Shoreline Planner, DOE, March 10, 2011. 16 Draft MICC 19.07.110(E) Table D. 17 Draft MICC 19.07.110(E)(6)(a)(ii).



PC Recommendation Exhibit 1

Draft: 4/6/2011

CITY OF MERCER ISLAND ORDINANCE NO. 11C-XX

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERCER ISLAND, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE 2011 CITY OF MERCER ISLAND SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM BY AMENDING MICC 19.07.110, 19.16.010, AND APPENDIX F TO TITLE 19 OF THE MERCER ISLAND MUNICIPAL CODE IN ORDER TO MAKE THE MERCER ISLAND MUNICIPAL CODE COMPATIBLE WITH THE ADOPTED SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT, AS REQUIRED BY RCW 90.58.080

WHEREAS, the City has previously adopted a Shoreline Master Program; and WHEREAS, the State of Washington passed the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 governing the adoption of Shoreline Master Programs, as currently set forth within Chapter 58 of Title 90 of the Revised Code of Washington, and subject to the Washington State Department of Ecology’s administrative rules contained within Title 173 of the Washington Administrative Code; and WHEREAS, the City applied for, and obtained a grant from the Washington State Department of Ecology to assist in the preparation and adoption of a mandated update to the Mercer Island Shoreline Master Program; and WHEREAS, the City has completed the preparation of supporting information and background material for the 2011 Shoreline Master Program update; and WHEREAS, the updated Shoreline Master Program provides for additional protection and development standards on Lake Washington; and WHEREAS, development applications are reviewed for compliance with these regulations; and WHEREAS, a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Determination of Non Significance for the 2011 Shoreline Master Program update was issued on March 15, 2010; and WHEREAS, in accordance with WAC 365-195-620, a notice of intent to adopt the proposed Mercer Island Shoreline Master Program was received by the State of Washington Department of Commerce on _________ __, 2011; and WHEREAS, the public process for the proposed amendments has provided for extensive public participation opportunities at 29 public meetings and hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council as well as a public open house, and dialogue sessions between May of 2009 and March of 2011; and



Draft: 4/6/2011

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public meetings and public hearings in 2010, and 2011 and forwarded a recommended Shoreline Master Program to the City Council on April 6, 2011; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the proposed Mercer Island Shoreline Master Program at a City Council public hearing on ______ ___, 2011; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Planning Commission’s recommendation, public comment, and other available information. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERCER ISLAND, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Repeal and Replace MICC Section 19.07.100 Shoreline Areas and 19.07.110,

Shoreline Management Master Program. MICC 19.07.100 “Shoreline Areas” and MICC 19.07.110 “Shoreline Management Master Program” are hereby repealed their entirety, replaced with the following new Section 19.07.110 “Shoreline Master Program” and shall read as follows:

19.07.110 Shoreline Master Program. A. Authority and Purpose.

1. Authority. This Section is adopted as part of the shoreline master program of the city. It is adopted pursuant to the authority and requirements of Chapter 90.58 RCW and Chapter 173-26 WAC.

2. Applicability. The requirements of this Section apply to all uses, activities and

development within the shorelands, unless specifically exempted. All proposed uses and development occurring within shoreline jurisdiction must conform to chapter 90.58 RCW, the Shoreline Management Act.

3. Purpose and Intent. It is the purpose and intent of this section to achieve the Shoreline

Master Program (SMP) mandates of the State of Washington and to adopt property development standards within the shorelands that protect the health, safety, welfare, values and property interests of the City of Mercer Island and its residents.

4. Relationship with other Mercer Island Codes and Ordinances. This section is an

integrated element of the City of Mercer Island Unified Development Code (Title 19) and other applicable development regulations contained in the Mercer Island City Code, including the storm water management regulations in Title 15, and building and construction regulations in Title 17. The provisions of the Critical Areas Ordinance (19.07.010 through and including 19.07.090 as in effect on January 1, 2011) are hereby incorporated as specific regulations of the Shoreline Master Program. To the extent this section conflicts with any other section of the Mercer Island Municipal Code, the provisions of this Section shall govern within the shorelands.



Draft: 4/6/2011

5. Relationship with other Federal and State Law. The provisions of this Section shall not relieve any responsibility to comply with other Federal and State laws or permits. All work at or waterward of the OHWM may require permits from one or all of the following: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Natural Resources or Washington Department of Ecology. B. General Regulations.

1. Legal Nonconforming Uses and Structures May Continue. Overwater uses and structures, and uses and structures twenty five (25) feet landward from the OHWM, which were legally created may be maintained, repaired, renovated, remodeled and completely replaced to the extent that non-conformance with the standards and regulations of this Section is not increased.

2. No Net Loss Standard and Mitigation Sequencing. No development shall be approved

unless the applicant demonstrates to the code official’s satisfaction that the shoreline development will not create a net loss of ecological function in the shorelands.

a. Standards Presumed to Meet No Net Loss. When a shoreline development complies

with all applicable development standards of this section, there will be a rebuttable presumption that the project does not create a net loss of ecological function to the shorelands.

b. Optional Flexible Standards. Whenever a substantial development project is proposed

and, there are optional flexible standards allowed for the project, or a discretionary decision such as a shoreline variance or shoreline conditional use permit is required for approval of the project, the applicant shall provide the City with a plan that demonstrates the proposed project will not create a net loss in ecological function to the shorelands. The plan shall accomplish no net loss of ecological function by avoiding, minimizing or mitigating adverse impacts to ecological functions or ecosystem-wide processes. This analysis may be conducted through the SEPA process.

i. Off Site Mitigation Permitted. While on-site mitigation is preferred, off site

mitigation may be permitted at the discretion of the code official. ii. Demonstration of No Net Loss Supported by a Qualified Professional. The code

official may require any applicant to provide reports by qualified professionals that demonstrate to the code official’s satisfaction that the applicant’s proposed plan avoids a net loss in ecological function.

3. Expansion of Legal Nonconforming Structures. Expansions of legal nonconforming over

water structures and structures upland twenty five (25) feet from the OHWM are permitted provided that the expanded structure is constructed in compliance with this section and all other standards and provisions of the Mercer Island development regulations.

4. Shoreline Habitat and Natural Enhancements Held Harmless. In those instances where

the OHWM moves further landward as a result of any action required by this Section, or in



Draft: 4/6/2011

accordance with permits involving a shoreline habitat and nature systems enhancement approved by the city, a state or federal agency, the shoreline setback shall be measured from the location of the OHWM that existed immediately prior to the action or enhancement project.

C. Shoreline Map and Designations. The Shoreline Environmental Designations Map, dated March 3, 2011 as shown in Appendix F is adopted as the Official Mercer Island Shoreline Environmental Designations Map. The digital map is available in the online version of the Mercer Island City Code at http://www.mercergov.org. All shorelands within the City are designated. Different areas of the city’s shorelands have different natural characteristics and development patterns. As a result, two shoreline designated environments are established to regulate developments and uses consistent with the specific conditions of the designated environments and to protect resources of the Mercer Island shorelands. They are:

1. Urban Park Environment. This environment consists of shoreland areas designated for public access and active and passive public recreation. The areas include, but are not limited to, parks, street ends, public utilities and other publicly owned rights-of-way. The uses located in this environment should be water-dependent and designed with no net loss to the ecological functions of the shorelands. Restoration of ecological functions are planned for these areas and are strongly encouraged. The preferred and priority use in the Urban Park Environment is public access to, and enjoyment of, Lake Washington.

2. Urban Residential Environment. The purpose of the Urban Residential Environment is to

provide for residential and recreational utilization of the shorelands, compatible with the existing residential character in terms of bulk, scale, type of development and no net loss of ecological functions of the shorelands. The preferred and priority use in the Urban Residential Environment is single family residential use. D. Use Regulations. The following tables specify the shoreline uses and developments which may take place or be conducted within the designated environments. The uses and developments listed in the matrix are allowed only if they are not in conflict with more restrictive regulations of the Mercer Island development code and are in compliance with the standards specified in subsection E of this section.

KEY:

CE: Permitted via Shoreline Categorically Exempt

P: P-1:

Permitted Use Uses permitted when authorized by a conditional use permit for the applicable zone shall also require a Shoreline Substantial Development permit and a shoreline plan in compliance with MICC 19.07.110.B.2

SCUP Shoreline Conditional Use Permit

NP: Not a Permitted Use



Draft: 4/6/2011

The following regulations apply to all uses and development within the shorelands, whether or not that development is exempt from the permit requirements.

Table A – Shoreland Uses Landward of the Ordinary High Water Mark:

SHORELAND USE LANDWARD OF THE OHWM

Urban Residential

Environment Urban Park

EnvironmentSingle Family Dwelling including accessory uses

and accessory structures CE NP Accessory dwelling units CE NP The use of a single-family dwelling as a bed and

breakfast P-1 NP A state-licensed day care or preschool P-1 NP Government services, public facilities, and museums

and art exhibitions P-1 P Public parks and open space P P Private recreational areas P NP Semi-private waterfront recreation areas for use by

10 or fewer families P NP Semi-private waterfront recreation areas for use by

more than 10 families P-1 NP Noncommercial recreational areas P-1 P Commercial recreational areas NP NP Places of worship P-1 NP Retirement homes located on property used

primarily for a place of worship P-1 NP Special needs group housing P NP Social service transitional housing P NP Public schools accredited or approved by the state

for compulsory school attendance NP NP Private schools accredited or approved by the state

for compulsory school attendance NP NP Streets and parking P P Transit facilities including light rail transit facilities,

transit stops, and associated parking lots P NP Wireless communications facilities P P New hard structural shoreline stabilization SCUP SCUP Soft structural shoreline stabilization P P Shoreland Surface Modification P P Restoration of ecological functions including

shoreline habitat and natural systems enhancement. P P

Boat ramp P P Agriculture, aquaculture, forest practices and mining NP NP



Draft: 4/6/2011

Table B - Shoreland Uses Waterward of the Ordinary High Water Mark:

SHORELAND USE WATERWARD OF THE OHWM

Urban Residential

Environment Urban Park

EnvironmentMoorage facilities and covered moorages 600 square

feet or less P P Covered moorage larger than 600 square feet SCUP SCUP Floating platforms P P Mooring piles, diving boards and diving platforms P P Boat ramp P P Boat houses NP NP Floating Homes NP NP Public access pier or boardwalk P P Utilities P P Public transportation facilities including roads,

bridges, and transit P P Transit facilities including light rail transit facilities P NP Dredging and dredge material disposal P P Breakwaters, jetties, and groins (except those for

restoration of ecological functions) NP NP Restoration of ecological functions including

shoreline habitat and natural systems enhancement. P P

Notes: A use not listed in this table it is not permitted within shorelands. A use permitted by this table shall meet all other applicable regulations, including, but not limited to, being an allowed use in the applicable zone.



Draft: 4/6/2011

E. Shoreland Development Standards. All development within the shoreline jurisdiction shall be in compliance with all development requirements specified in this section.

1. Standards Landward of the OWHM. The standards in Table C shall apply to development located landward of the OHWM:

Table C. Requirements for Development Located Landward from the OHWM

Setbacks for All Structures (Including Fences over 48 Inches High) and Parking

A* 25 feet from the OHWM and all required setbacks of the development code, except light rail transit facilities. If a wetland is adjacent to the shoreline, measure the shoreline setback from the wetland’s boundary.

Height Limits for All Structures

B Shall be the same as height limits specified in the development code but shall not exceed a height of 35 feet above average building elevation, except light rail transit facilities

Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage

C D

10%: between 0 and 25 feet from OHWM 30%: between 25 and 50 feet from OHWM

Minimum Land Area Requirements

E All semi-private, commercial and noncommercial recreational tracts and areas shall have minimum land area: 200 square feet per family, but not less than 600 square feet, exclusive of driveways or parking areas. Screening of the boundaries with abutting properties

Shoreland Surface Modification

Alterations over 250 cubic yards – outside the building footprint requires SEPA

Height Limits for Light Rail Transit Facilities within the Existing I-90 Corridor

The trackway and overhead wires, support poles, and similar features necessary to operate light rail transit facilities may be erected upon and exceed the height of the existing I-90 bridges

*The letters in this column refer to the Plan View(A) and Section(A) diagrams.



Draft: 4/6/2011

2. Bulkheads and Shoreline Stabilization Structures.

a. An existing shoreline stabilization structure may be replaced with a similar structure if there is a demonstrated need to protect principal uses or structures from erosion caused by currents or waves, and the following conditions shall apply:



Draft: 4/6/2011

i. The replacement structure should be designed, located, sized, and constructed to assure no net loss of ecological functions.

ii. Replacement walls or bulkheads shall not encroach waterward of the ordinary

high water mark or existing structure unless the primary structure was occupied prior to January 1, 1992 and there are overriding safety or environmental concerns. In such cases, the replacement structure shall abut the existing shoreline stabilization structure. Soft shoreline stabilization measures that provide restoration of shoreline ecological functions may be permitted waterward of the ordinary high-water mark.

iii. For purposes of this section standards on shoreline stabilization measures,

"replacement" means the construction of a new structure to perform a shoreline stabilization function of an existing structure which can no longer adequately serve its purpose. Additions to or increases in size of existing shoreline stabilization measures shall be considered new structures.

iv. Construction and maintenance of normal protective bulkhead common to single-

family dwellings requires only a shoreline exemption permit, unless a report is required by the code official to ensure compliance with the above conditions; however, if the construction of the bulkhead is undertaken wholly or in part on lands covered by water, such construction shall comply with SEPA mitigation.

b. New Structures for Existing Primary Structures: New or enlarged structural shoreline

stabilization measures for an existing primary structure, including residences, are not allowed unless there is conclusive evidence, documented by a geotechnical analysis, that the structure is in danger from shoreline erosion caused by currents, or waves. Normal sloughing, erosion of steep bluffs, or shoreline erosion itself, without a scientific or geotechnical analysis, is not demonstration of need. The geotechnical analysis should evaluate on-site drainage issues and address drainage problems away from the shoreline edge before considering structural shoreline stabilization. New or enlarged erosion control structure shall not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions.

c. New development should be located and designed to avoid the need for future

shoreline stabilization to the extent feasible. This future shoreline stabilization standard does not apply to stabilization that occurs pursuant to subsection (a) of this section. New structural stabilization measures in support of new nonwater-dependent development, including single-family residences, shall only be allowed when all of the conditions below apply:

i. The erosion is not being caused by upland conditions, such as the loss of

vegetation and drainage. ii. Nonstructural measures, such as placing the development further from the

shoreline, planting vegetation, or installing on-site drainage improvements, are not feasible or not sufficient.



Draft: 4/6/2011

iii. The need to protect primary structures from damage due to erosion is demonstrated through a geotechnical report, in compliance with MICC 19.07.110.E.2.h. The damage must be caused by natural processes, such as currents, and waves.

iv. The erosion control structure will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological

functions. d. New development on steep slopes or bluffs shall be set back sufficiently to ensure

that shoreline stabilization is unlikely to be necessary during the life of the structure, as demonstrated by a geotechnical analysis, in compliance with MICC 19.07.110.E.2.h and building and construction codes.

e. New structural stabilization measures in support of water-dependent development

shall only be allowed when all of the conditions below apply:

i. The erosion is not being caused by upland conditions, such as the loss of vegetation and drainage.

ii. Nonstructural measures, planting vegetation, or installing on-site drainage

improvements, are not feasible or not sufficient. iii. The need to protect primary structures from damage due to erosion is

demonstrated through a geotechnical report, in compliance with MICC 19.07.110.E.2.h and building and construction codes.

iv. The erosion control structure will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological

functions.

f. New structural stabilization measures to protect projects for the restoration of ecological functions or hazardous substance remediation projects pursuant to RCW 70.105D shall only be allowed when all of the conditions below apply:

i. Nonstructural measures, planting vegetation, or installing on-site drainage

improvements, are not feasible or not sufficient. ii. The erosion control structure will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological

functions.

g. Bulkheads shall be located generally parallel to the natural shoreline. No filling may be allowed waterward of the ordinary high water mark, unless there has been severe and unusual erosion within two year immediately preceding the application for the bulkhead. In this event the city may allow the placement of the bulkhead to recover the dry land area lost by erosion.

h. Geotechnical reports pursuant to this section that address the need to prevent potential

damage to a primary structure shall address the necessity for shoreline stabilization by estimating time frames and rates of erosion and report on the urgency associated with the specific situation.



Draft: 4/6/2011

As a general matter, hard armoring solutions should not be authorized except when a report confirms that there is a significant possibility that such a structure will be damaged within three years as a result of shoreline erosion in the absence of such hard armoring measures, or where waiting until the need is that immediate, would foreclose the opportunity to use measures that avoid impacts on ecological functions. Thus, where the geotechnical report confirms a need to prevent potential damage to a primary structure, but the need is not as immediate as the three years, that report may still be used to justify more immediate authorization to protect against erosion using soft measures.

i. When any structural shoreline stabilization measures are demonstrated to be

necessary, pursuant to above provisions, the following shall apply:

i. Limit the size of stabilization measures to the minimum necessary. Use measures designed to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. Soft approaches shall be used unless demonstrated not to be sufficient to protect primary structures, dwellings, and businesses.

ii. Ensure that publicly financed or subsidized shoreline erosion control measures do

not permanently restrict appropriate public access to the shoreline except where such access is determined to be infeasible because of incompatible uses, safety, security, or harm to ecological functions. See public access provisions; WAC 173-26-221(4). Where feasible, incorporate ecological restoration and public access improvements into the project.

iii. Mitigate new erosion control measures, including replacement structures, on

feeder bluffs or other actions that affect beach sediment-producing areas to avoid and, if that is not possible, to minimize adverse impacts to sediment conveyance systems. Where sediment conveyance systems cross jurisdictional boundaries, local governments should coordinate shoreline management efforts. If beach erosion is threatening existing development, local governments should adopt master program provisions for a beach management district or other institutional mechanism to provide comprehensive mitigation for the adverse impacts of erosion control measures.

j. The Development of 2 or more dwelling units on a lot abutting the OHWM should provide joint use or community dock facilities, when feasible, rather than allow individual docks for each lot.

3. Transportation and Parking.

a. Shoreline circulation system planning shall include safe, reasonable, and adequate systems for pedestrian, bicycle, and public transportation where appropriate. Circulation planning and projects should support existing and proposed shoreline uses that are consistent with all regulations.

b. Transportation and parking facilities shall be planned, located, and designed where

routes will have the least possible adverse effect on unique or fragile shoreline features, and will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions or adversely impact existing or planned water-dependent uses.



Draft: 4/6/2011

c. Where other options are available and feasible, new roads or road expansions should not be built within shorelands.

d. Parking facilities in shorelands shall be allowed only as necessary to support an

authorized use.

4. Standards Waterward of the OHWM. Moorage facilities may be developed and used as an accessory to dwellings on shoreline lots with water frontage meeting or exceeding the minimum lot width requirements specified in Table D. The standards in Table D shall apply to development located waterward of the OHWM:

Table D. Requirements for Moorage Facilities and Development Located Waterward from the OHWM

Setbacks for All Moorage Facilities, Covered Moorage, and Floating Platforms

A* B

10 feet from the lateral line (except where moorage facility is built pursuant to the agreement between adjoining owners as shown in Figure B below) Where a property shares a common boundary with the Urban Park Environment, the setback shall be 50 feet from the lateral line or 50% of the water frontage of the property, whichever is less.

Setbacks for Boat Ramps and Other Facilities for Launching Boats by Auto or Hand, Including Parking and Maneuvering Space

C 25 feet from any adjacent private property line

Length or Maximum Distance Waterward from the OHWM for Moorage Facilities, Covered Moorage, Boatlifts and Floating Platforms

D Maximum 100 feet, but in cases where water depth is less than 11.85 feet below OHWM, length may extend up to 150 feet or to the point where water depth is 11.85 feet at OHWM, whichever is less

Width of moorage facilities E Maximum 8 feet; does not apply to boat ramps, lift stations, or floating platforms

Height Limits for Walls, Handrails and Storage Containers Located on Piers

F 3.5 feet above the surface of a dock or pier. 4 feet for ramps and gangways designed to span the area 0 feet to 30 feet from the OHWM.

Height Limits for Mooring Piles, Diving Boards and Diving Platforms

G 10 feet above the elevation of the OHWM

Height Limits for Light Rail Transit Facilities within the Existing I-90 Corridor

The trackway and overhead wires, support poles, and similar features necessary to operate light rail transit facilities may be erected upon and exceed the height of the existing I-90 bridges

*The letters in this column refer to the Plan View (B) and Section(B) diagrams.



Draft: 4/6/2011

Table D (continued) Requirements for Moorage Facilities and Development Located



Draft: 4/6/2011

Waterward from the OHWM

Minimum Water Frontage for Moorage Facility

H* I J

Single-family lots: 40 feet Shared – two adjoining lots: 40 feet combined Semi-private recreational tracts:

2 families: 40 feet 3 – 5 families: 40 feet plus 10 feet for each family more than 2 6 – 10 families: 70 feet plus 5 feet for each family more than 5 11 – 100 families: 95 feet plus 2 feet for each family more than 10 101+ families: 275 feet plus 1 foot for each family more than 100

Covered Moorage

Permitted on single-family residential lots subject to the following: (a) Maximum height above the OHWM: 16 feet; 16 to 21 feet subject to

criteria of MICC 19.07.110.E.5.a (b) Location/area requirements: See Figure A for single-family lots and

Figure B for shared moorage. (c) Building area: 600 square feet, however a covered moorage may be

built larger than 600 square feet within the triangle subject to a shoreline conditional use permit

(d) Covered moorage shall have open sides. (e) Prohibited in semi-private recreational tracts and noncommercial

recreational areas. (f) Translucent canopies are required.

*The letters in this column refer to the Plan View (C).



Draft: 4/6/2011

5. The covered portion of a moorage shall be restricted to the area lying within a triangle as illustrated in Figure A, except as otherwise provided in MICC 1907.110.E.5.a. The base of the triangle shall be a line drawn between the points of intersection of the property lateral lines with the ordinary high water mark. The location of the covered moorage shall not extend more than 100 feet from the center of the base line of such triangle. In cases where water depth is less than 11.85 feet from OHWM, the location of the covered moorage may extend up to 150 from the center of the base line or to the point where water depth is 11.85 feet at OHWM, whichever is less. The required 10 foot setbacks from the side property lines shall be deducted from the triangle area.

a. A covered moorage is allowed outside the triangle, or a canopy up to 21 feet in

height, if the covered moorage meets all other regulations and:

i. Will not constitute a hazard to the public health, welfare, and safety, or be injurious to affected shoreline properties in the vicinity;

ii. Will constitute a lower impact for abutting property owners; iii. Is not in conflict with the general intent and purpose of the SMA, the shoreline

master program and the development code.



Draft: 4/6/2011

Figure A: Area of Permitted Covered Moorage, Individual Lots

Where a covered moorage or moorage facility is built pursuant to the agreement of

adjoining owners of single-family lots, the covered moorage area shall be deemed to include, subject to limitations of such joint agreement, all of the combined areas lying within the triangles extended upon each adjoining property and the inverted triangle situated between the aforesaid triangles, as illustrated in Figure B below.



Draft: 4/6/2011

Figure B: Area of Permitted Covered Moorage and Moorage Facilities, Two Adjoining Single-family Lots

6. New and Expanded Moorage Facilities. All permits for new and expanded moorage facility shall meet the following standards unless otherwise exempted. Moorage facilities have the option of meeting either the development standards prescribed in 19.07.110.E.6.a below, or the “Alternative Development Standards” in 19.07.110.E.6.b below.

a. Development Standards. A proposed moorage facility shall be presumed to not create

a net loss of ecological functions pursuant to 19.07.110.B.2 if:

i. the surface coverage area of the moorage facility is:

(A) 480 square feet or less for a single property owner,

(B) 700 square feet or less for two residential property owners (residential), or

(C) 1,000 square feet or less for three or more residential property owners,

ii. Piers, docks, and platform lifts must be fully grated with materials that allow a minimum of 40% light transmittance;

iii. Vegetation. The code official approves a vegetation plan that conforms to the following standards:

(A) Vegetation must be planted as provided in Figure C and as follows: Within the

25-foot shoreline setback, a 20-foot vegetation area shall be established, measured landward from the OHWM. 25% of the area shall contain vegetation coverage. The five feet nearest the OHWM shall contain at least 25% native vegetation coverage. A shoreline vegetation plan shall be submitted to the City for approval. The vegetation coverage shall consist of a variety of ground cover shrubs and trees, excluding non-native grasses. No plants on the current King County Noxious Weed lists shall be planted within the shorelands.



Draft: 4/6/2011

Figure C: Vegetation Plan

iv. Only piers, ramps, lift stations may be within the first 30 feet from the OHWM. No skirting is allowed on any structure.

v. The height above the OHWM for moorage facilities, except floats shall be a

minimum of 1.5 feet and a maximum of 5 feet. vi. The first in-water (nearest the OWHM) set of pilings shall be steel, 10 inch in

diameter or less, and at least 18 feet from the OHWM. Piling sets beyond the first shall also be spaced at least 18 feet apart and shall not be greater than 12 inches in diameter. Piles shall not be treated with pentachlorophenol, creosote, CCA or comparably toxic compounds. If ammoniacal copper zinc arsenate (ACZA) piling are proposed, the applicant shall meet all of the Best Management Practices, including a post-treatment procedure, as outlined in the amended Best Management Practices of the Western Wood Preservers. All piling sizes are in nominal diameter.

vii. Any paint, stain or preservative applied to components of the overwater structure

must be leach resistant, completely dried or cured prior to installation. Materials shall not be treated with pentochlorophenol, creosote, CCA or comparably toxic compounds.

viii. No more than two mooring piles shall be installed per structure. Joint-use

structures may have up to four mooring piles. The limits include existing mooring piles. Moorage piling shall not be installed within 30 feet of the OHWM. These piles shall be as far offshore as possible.

ix. The applicant shall abide by the work windows for listed species established by

the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers and Washington Fish and Wildlife.



Draft: 4/6/2011

x. Disturbance of bank vegetation shall be limited to the minimum amount necessary

to accomplish the project. Disturbed bank vegetation shall be replaced with native, locally adapted herbaceous and/or woody vegetation. Herbaceous plantings shall occur within 48 hours of the completion of construction. Woody vegetation components shall be planted in the fall or early winter, whichever occurs first. The applicant shall take appropriate measures to ensure revegetation success.

b. Alternative Development Standards. The code official shall approve moorage facilities not in compliance with the Development Standards in subsection MICC 19.07.110.E.6.a if all other requirements of the development code are met and the applicant:

i. demonstrates to the Code Official’s satisfaction that proposed project will not

create a net loss in ecological function of the shorelands, and ii. provides the City with documentation of approval of the moorage facilities by

both the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 7. Breakwaters, jetties, groins, and weirs. Breakwaters, jetties, groins, weirs, and similar

structures are prohibited, except for those structures installed to protect or restore ecological functions, such as woody debris installed in streams. Breakwaters, jetties, groins, and weirs shall be designed to protect critical areas and shall provide for mitigation according to the sequence defined in WAC 173-26-201 (2)(e).

8. Dredging.

a. Dredging shall be permitted only if navigational access has been unduly restricted or other extraordinary conditions in conjunction with water-dependent use; provided, that the use meets all state and federal regulations.

b. Dredging shall be the minimum necessary to accommodate the proposed use. c. Dredging shall utilize techniques that cause the least possible environmental and

aesthetic impact. d. Dredging is prohibited in the following locations:

i. Fish spawning areas. ii. In unique environments such as lake logging of the underwater forest.

e. Disposal of dredged material shall comply with Ecology Water Quality Certification process and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit requirements. The location and manner of the disposal shall be approved by the city.



Draft: 4/6/2011

9. General Requirements. The following requirements apply to the following types of activities that may be waterward and/or landward of the OHWM:

a. Critical Areas within the shorelands are regulated by MICC 19.07.010 through and

including 19.07.090, as adopted in the MICC on January 1, 2011. b. Utilities

i. Utilities shall be placed underground and in common rights-of-way wherever economically and technically practical.

ii. Shoreline public access shall be encouraged on publicly owned utility rights-of-

way, when such access will not unduly interfere with utility operations or endanger public health and safety. Utility easements on private property will not be used for public access, unless otherwise provided for in such easement.

iii. Restoration of the site is required upon completion of utility installation.

c. Archaeological and Historic Resources

i. If archaeological resources are uncovered during excavation, the developer and property owner shall immediately stop work and notify the City, the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, and affected Indian tribes.

ii. In areas documented to contain archaeological resources by the Office of

Archaeology and Historic Preservation, a site inspection or evaluation is required by a professional archaeologist in coordination with affected Indian tribes.

d. New development over 500 square feet of additional gross floor area or impervious

surface shall be required to provide the following landscaping if located adjacent to the OHWM:

i. As illustrated in Figure C and within the 25-foot shoreline setback, a 20-foot vegetation area shall be established, measured landward from the OHWM. 25% of the area shall contain vegetation coverage.

ii. The five feet nearest the OHWM shall contain at least 25% native vegetation

coverage. iii. A shoreline vegetation plan shall be submitted to the City for approval. iv. The vegetation coverage shall consist of a variety of ground cover shrubs and

trees, excluding non-native grasses. v. No plants on the current King County Noxious Weed lists shall be planted within

the shorelands.



Draft: 4/6/2011

Section 2. Amendments to Chapter 19.16 MICC, Definitions. MICC 19.16.010

“Definitions” is hereby amended as follows: F … Floating Home: means a single-family dwelling unit constructed on a float, which is moored, anchored or otherwise secured in waters. … E … Ecological functions or shoreline functions: means the work performed or role played by the physical, chemical, and biological processes that contribute to the maintenance of the aquatic and terrestrial environments that constitute the shoreline’s natural ecosystem. Ecosystem-wide processes: means the suite of naturally occurring physical and geologic processes of erosion, transport, and deposition; and specific chemical processes that shape landforms within a specific shoreline ecosystem and determine both the types of habitat and the associated ecological functions. … H … Hard Structural Shoreline Stabilization: Shore erosion control practices using hardened structures that armor and stabilize the shoreline from further erosion. Hard structural shoreline stabilization typically uses concrete, boulders, dimensional lumber or other materials to construct linear, vertical or near-vertical faces that are located at or waterward of ordinary high water, as well those structures located on average within five (5) feet landward of OHWM. These include bulkheads, rip-rap, groins, retaining walls and similar structures. … L … Lift Station (Boat Hoist): A structure or device normally attached to a dock or pier used to raise a watercraft above the waterline for secure moorage purposes. … N … Native Vegetation: Vegetation identified by the Washington Native Plant Society or the United States Department of Agriculture as being native to Washington State. … Ordinary High Water (OHW): The point on the shore that will be found by examining the bed and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual, and so long continued in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character distinct from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation as that condition exists on June 1, 1971, as it may naturally change thereafter in accordance with permits issued by a local government or the department.



Draft: 4/6/2011

Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM): The point on the shore that will be found by examining the bed and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual, and so long continued in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character distinct from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation as that condition exists on June 1, 1971, as it may naturally change thereafter in accordance with permits issued by a local government or the department of ecology; provided, that in any area where the OHWM cannot be found, the OHWM adjoining fresh water shall be the line of mean high water, or as amended by the State. For Lake Washington, the OHWM corresponds with a lake elevation of 28.67 feet above sea level, based on the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29). Alternatively, the identical OHWM corresponds with a lake elevation of 25.10 feet above sea level, when based on North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88). … R … Restoration of ecological functions: means the reestablishment or upgrading of impaired ecological shoreline processes or functions. This may be accomplished through measures including but not limited to re-vegetation, removal of intrusive shoreline structures and removal or treatment of toxic materials. Restoration does not imply a requirement for returning the shoreline area to aboriginal or pre-European settlement conditions. S … Shorelands: Lake Washington, its underlying land, associated wetlands, and those lands extending landward 200 feet from its Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). Shorelands: Those areas extending landward for 200 feet in all directions, as measured on a horizontal plane from the ordinary high water mark, floodways and contiguous floodplain areas landward 200 feet from such floodplains and all wetlands and river deltas associated with the streams, lakes and tidal waters subject to the Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW). … Soft Structural Shoreline Stabilization Measures: Shore erosion control and restoration practices that contribute to restoration, protection or enhancement of shoreline ecological functions. Soft shoreline stabilization typically includes a mix of gravels, cobbles, boulders, logs and native vegetation placed to provide shore stability in a non-linear, sloping arrangement. …

Section 3: Repeal and replace Appendix F of Title 19 MICC, Shoreline Designated Environments. Appendix F of Title 19 MICC, the map identifying Shoreline Designated Environments, is hereby replaced with Attachment A to this ordinance.

Section 4: Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or any municipal code section amended hereby should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or the amended code section.



Draft: 4/6/2011

Section 5. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date

of this ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 6: Effective Date. This ordinance shall be published in the official newspaper of the

City, and shall be transmitted to the Washington State Department of Ecology for review and approval. This ordinance shall become effective on the date that the Department of Ecology issues formal approval of the ordinance.

PASSED by the City Council of the City of Mercer Island, Washington at its regular meeting on the ____ day of _____________, 20___ and signed in authentication of its passage.

CITY OF MERCER ISLAND

________________________________ Jim Pearman, Mayor

ATTEST: ______________________________ Allison Spietz, City Clerk Approved as to Form: ______________________________ Katie Knight, City Attorney Date of Publication: Recommended by the City of Mercer Island Planning _________________________________________________ Adam Cooper, Chair Date Mercer Island Planning Commission


Island Crest Way

L a k eW a s h i n g t o n

W Mercer Way

72nd A

ve SE

SE 40th St

N Mercer Way

E Mercer

Way

!#"9078t

h Ave

SE

76th A

ve SE

W Me

r cer W

ay

Island

Crest

Way

SE 44th St

!#"90SE 24th St

W Me

rcer W

ay

SE 53rd Pl

E Mercer Way

Island

Crest

Way

84th A

ve SE

84th A

ve SE

78th A

ve SE

SE 68th St

SE 44th StreetSE 44th Street

SE 40th Street

SE 32nd Street

SE 24th Street

100th

Aven

ue SE

76th A

venue

SE

67th A

venue

SE

92nd A

venue

SE

84th A

venue

SE

SE 64th Street

SE 72nd Street

SE 80th Street

SE 87th Street

SE 48th Street

SE 55th Street

SE 64th Street

SE 72nd Street

SE 80th Street

SE 87th Street

76th A

venue

SE

92nd A

venue

SE

84th A

venue

SE

SE 40th Street

SE 32nd Street

SE 24th Street

FreemanLanding

SE 72nd StLanding

Clarke BeachPark

SE 40th StLanding

City BoatLaunch

FruitlandLanding

South PointLanding

Seashore DrLanding

SE 56th StLanding

GrovelandPark

MillerLanding

SE 45th StLanding

SE 43rd StLanding

FranklinLanding

SE 36th StLanding

ProctorLanding

Garfiel dLanding

SlaterPark

CalkinsLanding

SE 20th StLanding

77th Ave SE Landing

Lincoln Landing

74th Ave SELanding

72nd Ave SELanding

RoanokeLanding

Produced by the City of Mercer Island. March 3, 2011.All rights reserved. No warrantes of any sor t, incl udi ng

but not limited to accuracy, fitnes s or me r chant abi lity, accompany this product. S:\DSG\Planning\GIS\Projects\ShorelineMasterPlanUpdate\FinalMXD\11X17Maps\Exhibit F-2-15-11.mxd

Appendix F - Proposed Shoreline Environment DesignationsShoreline Master Program - City of Mercer Island

0 1,000 2,000500Ft

ILandward extent of Shoreline Management Area is measured 200 ft landward of the Ordinary High Water Mark.3

Urban Park Environment

Urban Residential Environment

WatercourseMajor Roads

Minor Roads

1,2,3

Waterward extent of Shoreline Management Area is measured from the Ordinary High Watermark to the middle of Lake Washigton.2 Waterward extent of City jurisdiction is measured to the middle of Lake Washington, pursuant to RCW 35.21.160.1

Luther BurbankPark




Draft: 4/14/2011

CITY OF MERCER ISLAND ORDINANCE NO. 11C-XX

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERCER ISLAND, WASHINGTON, AMENDING MICC 19.07.110 AND 19.15.010(E) IN ORDER TO PROVIDED CONSISTENCY WITH THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT (RCW 90.58) AND THE MERCER ISLAND CITY CODE RELATED TO PROCESSING OF SHORELINE PERMITS

WHEREAS the section 19.07.110.C of Mercer Island City Code (MICC) currently provides the procedural requirements for processing of shoreline permits; and WHEREAS, MICC 19.15 provides for the procedural requirements for most other land use permits; and WHEREAS RCW 90.58 and WAC 173-27 provides specific requirements for the processing of shoreline permits; and WHEREAS, the City of Mercer Island desires to rectify any inconsistencies within state law and the current City Code for the processing of shoreline permits; and WHEREAS, the City of Mercer Island, desires to consolidate the location for processing of permits within the municipal code; and WHEREAS, the City's State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Responsible Official has reviewed the proposed amendments to Title 19 under the provisions of SEPA and issued a Determination of Non-Significance on March 15, 2010; and WHEREAS, the City complied with all public notice requirements for the Planning Commission open record public hearing and the City Council public meeting; and WHEREAS, on April 6, 2011, the Mercer Island Planning Commission made its final recommendations on the proposed code amendments; and WHEREAS, the Mercer Island City Council conducted a 1st reading on ______ ___, 2011 and a 2nd reading on ______ ___, during which the City Council considered the Planning Commission’s recommendations, held a public meeting, and adopted the code changes set forth in this ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERCER ISLAND, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:



Draft: 4/14/2011

Section 1. Repeal of MICC Section 19.07.110(C) Administration and Procedures. MICC 19.07.110(C) “Administration and Procedures” is hereby repealed in its entirety.

Section 2. Amendments to Chapter 19.15.020 MICC, Permit Review Procedures.

MICC 19.15.020 “Permit Review Procedures” is hereby amended as follow: 19.15.020(G) Decision Criteria … 6. Shoreline Permits Administration and Procedures:

a. Administrative Responsibility. Except as otherwise stated in this section, the code official is responsible for:

i. Administering shoreline permits.

ii. Approving, approving with conditions or denying shoreline exemption permits,

substantial development permits, shoreline conditional use permits, shoreline variances and permit revisions in accordance with applicable provisions.

iii. Determining compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act. iv. No development shall be undertaken within the shorelands without first obtaining a

Shoreline Exemption Permit, Substantial Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit, and/or a Variance Permit in accordance with all applicable procedures unless it qualifies under a Categorical Exemption. In addition, such permit shall be in compliance with permit requirements of all other agencies having jurisdiction within the shorelands. Compliance with all applicable federal and state regulations is also required.

b. Shoreline Categorical Exemption Decision Criteria and Process. Any development that

qualifies as being a Shoreline Categorical Exemption, as specified in MICC 19.07.110, shall not require a shoreline permit, but must still meet all requirements of the Mercer Island Unified Land Development Code.

c. Shoreline Exemption Permit Decision Criteria and Process.

i. Shoreline Exemption Permit Application Criteria. A shoreline exemption permit may

be granted to the following development as long as such development is in compliance with all applicable requirements of the city of Mercer Island Unified Land Development Code and any of the following:

(A) Any development of which the total cost or fair market value, whichever is

higher, does not exceed $5,718 or as periodically revised by the Washington State Office of Financial Management, if such development does not materially interfere with the normal public use of the water or shorelines of the state; or



Draft: 4/14/2011

(B) Normal maintenance or repair of existing structures or developments, including

damage by accident, fire or elements. “Normal maintenance” includes those usual acts established to prevent a decline, lapse, or cessation from a lawfully established condition. “Normal repair” means to restore a development to a state comparable to its original condition within a reasonable period after decay or partial destruction, including complete replacement of legally existing structures. Normal maintenance of single-family dwellings is categorically exempt as stated above; or

(C) Construction of the normal protective bulkhead common to single-family

dwellings. A “normal protective” bulkhead is constructed at or near the ordinary high water mark to protect a single-family dwelling and is for protecting land from erosion, not for the purpose of creating land. Where an existing bulkhead is being replaced, it shall be constructed no further waterward of the existing bulkhead than is necessary for construction of new footings; or

(D) Emergency construction necessary to protect property from damage by the

elements. An “emergency” is an unanticipated and imminent threat to public health, safety, or the environment which requires immediate action within a time too short to allow full compliance with this section; or

(E) Construction or modification of navigational aids such as channel markers and

anchor buoys; or

(F) Construction of a dock, designed for pleasure craft only, for the private noncommercial use of the owners, lessee, or contract purchaser of a single-family dwelling, for which the cost or fair market value, whichever is higher, does not exceed $10,000; or

(G) Any project with a certification from the governor pursuant to Chapter 80.50

RCW; or (H) Projects for the Restoration of Ecological Functions.

ii. Shoreline Exemption Permit Application Process. The city shall issue or deny the

Shoreline Exemption Permit within 10 calendar days of receiving a complete application, or 10 days after issuance of a DNS, MDNS or EIS if SEPA review is required. The city shall send the shoreline permit decisions to the applicant and all applicable local, state, or federal agencies as required by state or federal law.

d. Substantial Development Permit Application Decision Criteria and Process. A substantial

development permit (SDP) is required for any development within shorelands not qualifying as being subject to a categorical exemption or shoreline exemption permit. Requirements and procedures for securing a substantial development permit are established below.

i. SDP Application Decision Criteria. All requirements of the Mercer Island Unified

Land Development Code shall apply to the approval of a Shoreline Development Permit.



Draft: 4/14/2011

ii. SDP Application Process. The applicant shall attend a preapplication meeting prior to submittal of a substantial development permit. Upon completion of the preapplication meeting, a complete application, filing fees and SEPA checklist, if applicable, shall be filed with the city on approved forms to ensure compliance with development codes and standards.

(A) Once a complete application has been submitted, public notice of an application

for a substantial development permit shall be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Mercer Island Uniform Land Development Code for Administrative Actions; provided, such notice shall be given at least 30 days before the date of final action by the city. The notices shall include a statement that any person desiring to submit written comments concerning an application, or desiring to receive notification of the final decision concerning an application as expeditiously as possible after the issuance of the decision, may submit the comments or request a copy of the decision(s) to the city within thirty days from the last date the notice is published. If a hearing is to be held on an application, notices of such hearing shall include a statement that any person may submit oral or written comments on an application at the hearing.

(B) Within 30 days of the final publication, posting or mailing of the notice,

whichever comes last, any interested person may submit written comments on the proposed application. The city will not make a decision on the permit until after the end of the comment period. An open record hearing before the code official, as set out in MICC 19.15.020(F), shall be conducted on the Shoreline Substantial Development Permits when the following factors exist:

(1) The proposed development has broad public significance; or (2) Within the 30-day comment period, 10 or more interested citizens file a

written request for a public hearing; or (3) At the discretion of the code official.

(C) The technical review of shoreline Substantial Development Permits must ensure

that the proposal complies with the criteria of the Shoreline Management Act policies and all requirements of the city of Mercer Island Unified Land Development Code.

(D) The city’s action in approving, approving with conditions, or denying any

substantial development permit or shoreline exemption is final unless an appeal is filed in accordance with applicable laws. The city shall send the shoreline permit decisions to the applicant, the Department of Ecology, the Washington State Attorney General and to all other applicable local, state, or federal agencies.

(E) The applicant shall not begin construction until after 21-days from the date of

receipt by the Department of Ecology and Attorney General and/or any appeals are concluded. The applicant shall also comply with all applicable federal, state and city standards for construction.

e. Shoreline Conditional Use Permit Application Decision Criteria and Process. The

purpose of a shoreline conditional use permit is to provide a system which allows flexibility in the application of use regulations in a manner consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020. In authorizing a shoreline conditional use, special conditions may be attached to the permit by the



Draft: 4/14/2011

City of Mercer Island or the Department of Ecology to prevent undesirable effects of the proposed use and/or to assure consistency of the project with the Shoreline Management Act and the applicable city regulations.

i. Shoreline Conditional Use Permit Application Decision Criteria. All requirements of

the Mercer Island Unified Land Development Code shall apply to the approval of a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit. Uses that require a shoreline conditional use permit may be authorized provided that the applicant demonstrates all of the following:

(A) That the proposed use is consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and the

Mercer Island Uniform Land Development Code;

(B) That the proposed use will not detrimentally interfere with the normal public use of shorelands within the “Urban Park Environment” shoreline environment designation;

(C) That the proposed use of the site and design of the project is compatible with

other authorized uses within the area and with uses allowed for the area by the Mercer Island Uniform Land Development Code;

(D) That the proposed use will cause no significant adverse effects to the shoreline

environment in which it is to be located; and

(E) That the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect.

(F) In applying the above criteria when reviewing shoreline conditional use applications, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example, if shoreline conditional use permits were granted for other developments in the area where similar circumstances exist, the total of the shoreline conditional uses shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not produce substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment.

ii. Shoreline Conditional Use Permit Application Process. The applicant shall attend a

preapplication meeting prior to submittal of a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit. Upon completion of the preapplication meeting, a complete application, filing fees and SEPA checklist, if applicable, shall be filed with the city on approved forms to ensure compliance with development codes and standards.


for a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit shall be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Mercer Island Uniform Land Development Code for Discretionary Actions; provided, such notice shall be given at least 30 days before the date of decision by the city.

The notices shall include a statement that any person desiring to submit written

comments concerning the application, receive notice of and participate in any hearings, or desiring to receive notification of the final decision concerning the application as expeditiously as possible after the issuance of the decision, may submit the comments or request a copy of the



Draft: 4/14/2011

decision(s) to the city within thirty days of the last date the notice is published, and any appeal rights.

If a hearing is to be held on an application, notices of such a hearing shall include a

statement that any person may submit oral or written comments on an application at the hearing.

(B) Within 30 days of the final publication, posting or mailing of the notice, whichever comes last, any interested person may submit written comments on the proposed application. The city will not make a decision on the permit until after the end of the comment period.

(C) The technical review of Shoreline Conditional Use Permit must ensure that the

proposal complies with the criteria of the Shoreline Management Act policies and all requirements of the city of Mercer Island Unified Land Development Code. An open record hearing before the code official, as set out in MICC 19.15.020(F), shall be conducted on the Shoreline Conditional Use Permits when the following factors exist:

(1) The proposed development has broad public significance; or (2) Within the 30-day comment period, 10 or more interested citizens file a

written request for a public hearing; or (3) At the discretion of the code official.

(D) The final decision in approving, approving with conditions, or denying a

Shoreline Conditional Use Permit is rendered by the Department of Ecology in accordance with WAC 173-27-200, and all other applicable local, state, or federal laws. The city shall send the shoreline permit decision to the applicant, the Department of Ecology, the Washington State Attorney General and to all other applicable local, state, or federal agencies.



f. Shoreline Variance Permit Decision Criteria and Process.

i. Shoreline Variance Criteria. Shoreline Variances are strictly limited to granting relief from specific bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable regulations where there are extraordinary circumstances relating to the physical character or configuration of property such that the strict implementation of the regulations will impose unnecessary hardships on the applicant or thwarting of the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. Shoreline variances for use regulations are prohibited. In addition, in all instances the applicant for a shoreline variance shall demonstrate strict compliance with all variance criteria set out in MICC 19.15.020(G)(4) and the following additional criteria:

(A) In the granting of all shoreline variance permits, consideration shall be given to

the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example if shoreline variances were granted to other developments in the area where similar circumstances exist the



Draft: 4/14/2011

total of the shoreline variances shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not produce substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment.

(B) Shoreline variance permits for development that will be located landward of the

ordinary high water mark, and/or landward of any associated wetland, may be authorized; provided, the applicant can demonstrate all of the following:

(1) That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards

set forth in the applicable regulations precludes or significantly interferes with reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited;

(2) That the hardship in subsection 19.15.020.G.6.f.i of this section is specifically

related to the property, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the applicable regulations, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant’s own actions;

(3) That the design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses in the

area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the shoreline environment;

(4) That the requested shoreline variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and is the minimum necessary to afford relief; and

(5) That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.

(C) Shoreline variance permits for development that will be located waterward of the

ordinary high water mark, or within any associated wetland may be authorized; provided, the applicant can demonstrate all of the following:

(1) That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards

set forth in the applicable regulations precludes reasonable use of the property;

(2) That the proposal is consistent with the criteria established under subsections 19.15.020.G.6.f.i(B)(1) through (5) of this section; and

(3) That the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be

adversely affected.

ii. Shoreline Variance Permit Application Process. The applicant shall attend a preapplication meeting prior to submittal of a Shoreline Variance. Upon completion of the preapplication meeting, a complete application, filing fees and SEPA checklist, if applicable, shall be filed with the city on approved forms to ensure compliance with development codes and standards.


for a Shoreline Variance shall be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Mercer



Draft: 4/14/2011

Island Uniform Land Development Code for Discretionary Actions; provided, such notice shall be given at least 30 days before the date of decision by the city.

The notices shall include a statement that any person desiring to submit written

comments concerning the application, receive notice of and participate in any hearings, or desiring to receive notification of the final decision concerning the application as expeditiously as possible after the issuance of the decision, may submit the comments or request a copy of the decision(s) to the city within thirty days the last date the notice is published, and any appeal rights.

If a hearing is to be held on an application, notices of such a hearing shall include a

statement that any person may submit oral or written comments on an application at the hearing.

(B) Within 30 days of the final publication, posting or mailing of the notice, whichever comes last, any interested person may submit written comments on the proposed application. The city will not make a decision on the permit until after the end of the comment period.

(C) The technical review of Shoreline Variance Permit must ensure that the proposal

complies with the criteria of the Shoreline Management Act policies and all requirements of the city of Mercer Island Unified Land Development Code. An open record hearing before the code official, as set out in MICC 19.15.020(F), shall be conducted on the Shoreline Variance Permits when the following factors exist:

(1) The proposed development has broad public significance; or (2) Within the 30-day comment period, 10 or more interested citizens file a written request for a public hearing; or (3) At the discretion of the code official.

(D) The final decision in approving, approving with conditions, or denying a

Shoreline Conditional Use Permit is rendered by the Department of Ecology in accordance with WAC 173-27-200, and all other applicable local, state, or federal agencies. The city shall send the shoreline permit decision to the applicant, the Department of Ecology, the Washington State Attorney General and to all other applicable local, state, or federal agencies.



iii. The reasonable use exemption provided in MICC 19.07.030 (b) does not apply in the

shorelands. The provision of reasonable use in the shorelands shall be accomplished through a shoreline variance.

g. Time Limits of Permits. The following time limits shall apply to all shoreline exemption,

substantial development, shoreline conditional use permits and shoreline variance permits:



Draft: 4/14/2011

i. Construction or substantial progress toward construction of a development for which a permit has been granted must be undertaken within two years of the effective date of a shoreline permit. Where no construction activities are involved, the use or activity shall be commenced within two years of the effective date of a substantial development permit. The effective date of a shoreline permit shall be the date of the last action required on the shoreline permit and all other government permits and approvals that authorize the development to proceed, including all administrative and legal actions on any such permit or approval.

ii. A single extension before the end of the time limit, with prior notice to parties of

record, for up to one year, based on reasonable factors may be granted, if a request for extension has been filed before the expiration date and notice of the proposed extension is given to parties of record and to the Department of Ecology.

h. Appeals. Appeals to any shoreline permit decision, except shoreline exemption permits,

shall be in accordance with RCW 90.58.180. Appeals to shoreline exemptions permits shall be filed in accordance with MICC 19.15.020.J.

i. Suspension of Permits. The city may suspend any shoreline exemption permit, substantial

development permit, shoreline conditional use permit, or shoreline variance permit when the permittee has not complied with the conditions of the permit. Such noncompliance may be considered a public nuisance. The enforcement shall be in conformance with the procedures set forth in MICC 19.15.030, Enforcement.

j. Revisions. When an applicant seeks to revise a substantial development permit, shoreline

conditional use permit and/or shoreline variance permit the requirement of WAC 173-27-100, as amended, shall be met. Section 3. Amendments to Chapter 19.15.010 MICC, General Procedures. MICC

19.15.010 “General Procedures” is hereby amended as follows: 19.15.010 General procedures … E. Summary of Actions and Authorities. The following is a nonexclusive list of the actions that the city may take under the development code, the criteria upon which those decisions are to be based, and which boards, commissions, elected officials, or city staff have authority to make the decisions and to hear appeals of those decisions.

ACTION DECISION

AUTHORITY CRITERIA

APPEAL AUTHORITY

Ministerial Actions

Right-of-Way Permit City engineer Chapter 19.09 MICC Hearing examiner

Home Business Permit

Code official MICC 19.02.010 Hearing examiner

Special Needs Group Police chief MICC 19.06.080(A) Hearing examiner



Draft: 4/14/2011

Housing Safety Determination

Lot Line Adjustment Permit

Code official Chapter 19.08 MICC Hearing examiner

Design Review – Minor Exterior Modification Outside Town Center

Code official MICC 19.15.040, Chapters 19.11 and 19.12 MICC

Design commission

Design Review – Minor Exterior Modification in Town Center

Design commission MICC 19.15.040, Chapters 19.11 and 19.12 MICC

Hearing examiner

Final Short Plat Approval

Code official Chapter 19.08 MICC Planning commission

Seasonal Development Limitation Waiver

Building official or city arborist

MICC 19.10.030, 19.07.060(D)(4)

Building board of appeals

Development Code Interpretations

Code official MICC 19.15.020(L) Planning commission

Shoreline Exemption Code official MICC 19.07.010 and 19.15.020(G)(6)(b)(i)

Hearing examiner* 1

Administrative Actions

Accessory Dwelling Unit Permit

Code official MICC 19.02.030 Hearing examiner

Preliminary Short Plat


Deviation (Except Shoreline Deviations)

Code official MICC 19.15.020(G), 19.01.070, 19.02.050(F), 19.02.020(C)(4) and (D)(3)

Planning commission

Critical Areas Determination


Shoreline – Substantial Development Permit

Code official MICC 19.07.110 and 19.15.020(G)(6)

Shoreline hearings board

SEPA Threshold Determination

Code official MICC 19.07.120 Planning commission

Short Plat Alteration and Vacations

Code official MICC 19.08.010(G) Hearing examiner

Long Plat Alteration City council via MICC 19.08.010(F) Superior court



Draft: 4/14/2011

and Vacations planning commission

Temporary Encampment

Code official MICC 19.06.090 Superior court

Discretionary Actions

Conditional Use Permit

Planning commission MICC 19.11.130(B), 19.15.020(G)

Hearing examiner

Reclassification (Rezone)

City council via planning commission* 2

MICC 19.15.020(G) Superior court

Design Review – Major New Construction

Design commission MICC 19.15.040, Chapters 19.11 and 19.12 MICC

Hearing examiner

Preliminary Long Plat Approval

City council via planning commission**2

Chapter 19.08 MICC Superior court

Final Long Plat Approval

City council via code official

Chapter 19.08 MICC Superior court

Variance Hearing examiner MICC 19.15.020(G), 19.01.070

Planning commission

Variance from Short Plat Acreage Limitation

Planning commission MICC 19.08.020 City council

Critical Areas Reasonable Use Exception

Hearing examiner MICC 19.07.030(B) Superior court

Street Vacation City council via planning commission** 2

MICC 19.09.070 Superior court

Shoreline Conditional Use Permit

Code Official and Department of Ecology3

MICC 19.15.020(G)(6) State Shorelines Hearings Board

Shoreline Deviation Planning commission MICC 19.07.080 City Council

Shoreline Variance Planning commission Code Official and Department of Ecology3

MICC 19.15.020(G)(6) State Shorelines Hearings Board

Impervious Surface Variance

Hearing examiner MICC 19.02.020(D)(4) Superior court

Legislative Actions

Code Amendment City council via planning commission** 2

MICC 19.15.020(G) Growth management hearings board



Draft: 4/14/2011

Comprehensive Plan Amendment

City council via planning commission** 2

MICC 19.15.020(G) Growth management hearings board

* 1Final rulings granting or denying an exemption under MICC 19.07.11019.15.020(G)(6) are not appealable to the shoreline hearings board (SHB No. 98-60).

** 2The original action is by the planning commission which holds a public hearing and makes recommendations to the city council which holds a public meeting and makes the final decision. 3Must be approved by the City of Mercer Island prior to review by DOE per WAC 173-27-200 and RCW 90.58.140(10) Section 4: Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or any

municipal code section amended hereby should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or the amended code section.

Section 5. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date

of this ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 6: Effective Date. The effective date of this ordinance shall be concurrent with the

effective date of Ord. 11C-XX. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Mercer Island, Washington at its regular meeting on the ____ day of _____________, 20___ and signed in authentication of its passage.

CITY OF MERCER ISLAND

________________________________ Jim Pearman, Mayor

ATTEST: ______________________________ Allison Spietz, City Clerk



Draft: 4/14/2011

Approved as to Form: ______________________________ Katie Knight, City Attorney Date of Publication: Recommended by the City of Mercer Island Planning Commission _________________________________________________ Adam Cooper, Chair Date Mercer Island Planning Commission



Page 1 of 15

Shoreline Master Program Policies INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this document is four-fold:

1. To fulfill the requirements of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) of 1971, Chapter 286, Laws of 1971, Chapter 90.58. RCW and Chapter 173- 26 WAC by developing a Master Program to guide the future use and development of Mercer Island’s shoreline.

2. To recognize the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8) Chinook

Salmon Conservation Plan. 3. To provide guidelines for revising local ordinances and zoning codes. 4. To provide a basis for evaluating applications for shoreline permits on Mercer Island. The State of Washington Shoreline Management Act of 1971 recognizes that the shorelines of the state are among our most valuable and fragile natural resources and directs all local governments to develop a Master Program for the management of these shorelines. The Law specifies that all lakes over 1,000 acres in surface area are Shorelines of Statewide Significance. Lake Washington is such a shoreline and in our planning we must, as the Shoreline Management Act specifies, provide for uses in the following order of preference: those which

1. Recognize and protect the state-wide interest over local interest; 2. Preserve the natural character of the shoreline; 3. Result in long term over short term benefit; 4. Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline; 5. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shoreline; 6. Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline; 7. Provide for any other element deemed appropriate or necessary.

PROLOGUE

Mercer Island was originally utilized as a source of timber, and although proposed as a “regional park” in its entirety at one time, it became a recreational and, later, a prime residential area. Until 1940, boat and ferry travel was the primary means of reaching the Island from Seattle. In 1940 the Lake Washington floating bridge was completed. At this time the population of the Island and, subsequently, the complexion of development changed rapidly. Developers took advantage of the relatively easy access and relatively close proximity to Seattle’s employment centers, and land quickly changed from forest to subdivision.

Planning during this time and up until the early 1960’s was conducted by King County. Since accepting the County zoning upon incorporation of the City in 1960, few changes affecting shoreline uses have occurred, with single-family residential and recreation constituting the primary shoreline uses.



Page 2 of 15

The City developed its first Shoreline Master Program in 1974. Key considerations within this plan included conservation, public access to the shoreline, residential development, and the guidance for recreational uses along the Mercer Island shoreline. These initial policy objectives are reflected in today’s protection of the City’s shoreline, which includes approximately 6,000 lineal feet of publicly owned shoreline, developed as waterfront recreation areas. Included in these publicly owned lands are nineteen street ends; Groveland Beach Park; Clarke Beach Park; and Luther Burbank Park, which was transferred in 2003 from King County to the City of Mercer Island via an Intergovernmental Land Transfer Agreement. During the 35 years since the City adopted its first SMP, the Mercer Island has matured to the point where it is largely developed with the priority uses planned for in the first SMP. For example, an inventory of the shoreline prepared as part of this SMP update identified only 30 shoreline properties that are currently undeveloped.

Since 1990, when the state enacted the Growth Management Act, state policy has promoted greater density in urban areas, such as the City of Mercer Island and the other cities that surround Lake Washington. In addition, the increased land values on the Island have created pressures for more intense use of lands during redevelopment.

The City’s and region’s development during this time has impacted the shoreline. Docks and bulkheads, impervious surfaces in shoreline area and in adjacent areas have impacted the shoreline environment, including salmonid habitat. In 1999, Chinook salmon and bull trout were listed as “Threatened” under the Federal Endangered Species Act. New scientific data and research has improved our understanding of shoreline ecological functions and their value in terms of fish and wildlife, water quality, and human health. Scientific information, however, remains incomplete and sometimes inconsistent in some areas important to Mercer Island’s development pattern.

INTENT To address changes in the shoreline environment, comply with the mandates of the Shoreline Management Act, and enable the City to plan for emerging issues, the City has initiated an extensive update of its Shoreline Master Program. The new program is intended to respond to current conditions and the community’s vision for the future. The largely built out character of the shoreline, as well as the increasing protections under state and federal law for shoreline habitat are two factors that have strongly influenced the Update’s direction. In updating the program, the City’s primary objectives are to:

Enable current and future generations to enjoy an attractive, healthy and safe waterfront.

Protect the quality of water and shoreline natural resources to preserve fish and wildlife and their habitats.



Page 3 of 15

Protect the City’s investments, as well as those of property owners along and near the shoreline.

Produce an updated Shoreline Master Program (SMP) that is supported by Mercer

Island’s elected and appointed officials, citizens, property owners, the State of Washington, and other key groups with an interest in the shoreline.

Fairly allocate the responsibilities for increased shoreline protection among new

development and redevelopment.

Assure that regulatory or administrative actions do not unconstitutionally infringe upon private property rights

The City of Mercer Island, through adoption of the Shoreline Master Program, intends to implement the Washington State Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58) and its policies, including protecting the State’s shorelines and their associated natural resources, planning for and fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses, and providing opportunities for the general public to have access to and enjoy shorelines. The City of Mercer Island’s Shoreline Master Program represents the City’s participation in a coordinated planning effort to protect the public interest associated with the shorelines of the State while, at the same time, recognizing and protecting private property rights consistent with the public interest. The Program preserves the public’s opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of shorelines of the State and protects the functions of shorelines so that, at a minimum, the City achieves a ‘no net loss’ of ecological functions, as evaluated under the Final Shoreline Analysis Report issued in July 2009. The Program also promotes restoration of ecological functions where such functions are found to have been impaired, enabling functions to improve over time. The goals and policies of the SMA constitute one of the goals for growth management as set forth in RCW 36.70A.020 and, as a result, the goals and policies of this SMP serve as an element of Mercer Island’s Comprehensive Plan and should be consistent with other elements of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, other portions of the SMP adopted under chapter 90.58 RCW, including use regulations, are considered a part of the city's development regulations. I. DESIGNATED ENVIRONMENTS WAC 173-26-211 states, “Master programs shall contain a system to classify shoreline areas into specific environment designations. This classification system shall be based on the existing use pattern, the biological and physical character of the shoreline, and the goals and aspirations of the community as expressed through comprehensive plans as well as the criteria in this section. Each master program's classification system shall be consistent with that described in WAC 173-26-211 (4) and (5) unless the alternative proposed provides equal or better implementation of the act.”



Page 4 of 15

WAC 173-26-211(4)(c) allows for local governments to establish a designation system, provided it is consistent with the purposes and policies of WAC 173-26-211 and WAC 173-26-211(5). Mercer Island contains two distinct shoreline designations, pursuant to WAC 173-26-211(4)(c): urban residential, and urban park.

This system is designed to encourage uses in each environment which enhance the character of that environment. The basic intent of this system is to utilize performance standards which regulate use activities in accordance with goals and objectives defined locally. Thus, the particular uses or type of developments placed in each environment should be designed and located so that there are no effects detrimental to achieving the objectives of the environment designations and local development criteria. This approach provides an ‘umbrella’ environment class over local planning and zoning on the shorelines. Since every area is endowed with different resources, has different intensity of development and attaches different social values to these physical and economic characteristics, the enforcement designations should not be regarded as a substitute for local planning and land-use regulations.”

1. Urban Residential The purpose of the urban residential environment is to accommodate residential development and appurtenant structures that are consistent with this chapter. An additional purpose is to provide appropriate public access and recreational uses.

Designation Criteria: Areas that are predominantly single-family or multifamily residential development or are planned and platted for residential development.

Management Policies:

1. Standards for density or minimum frontage width, setbacks, lot coverage limitations, buffers, shoreline stabilization, vegetation conservation, critical area protection, and water quality should be set to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions, taking into account the environmental limitations and sensitivity of the shoreline area, the level of infrastructure and services available, and other comprehensive planning considerations.

2. Development of multifamily, recreational and residential subdivisions of five or more lots should provide public access and joint use for community recreational facilities, except when there are constitutional or other legal constraints.

3. Access, utilities, and public services should be available and adequate to serve existing needs and/or planned future development.

4. Non-commercial recreational areas should be allowed.

2. Urban Park Environment



Page 5 of 15

The purpose of the urban park environment is to protect and restore ecological functions in urban and developed settings, while allowing public access and a variety of park and recreation uses.

Designation Criteria: An urban park environment designation will be assigned to publicly owned shorelands, including all parks, street ends and public access points.

Management policies:

1. Uses that preserve the natural character of the area or promote preservation of open space, or sensitive lands either directly or over the long term should be the primary allowed uses. Uses that result in restoration of ecological functions should be allowed if the use is otherwise compatible with the purpose of the environment and the setting.

2. Standards should be established for shoreline stabilization measures, vegetation conservation, water quality, and shoreline modifications within the urban park designation. These standards should ensure that new development does not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions.

3. Public access and public recreation objectives should be implemented whenever feasible and significant ecological impacts can be mitigated.

4. Water-oriented uses should be given priority over nonwater-oriented uses. Water-dependent uses should be given highest priority.

II. GENERAL GOALS AND POLICIES

1. PUBLIC ACCESS

The following goal and policies address the ability of the public to reach, touch, view, and travel on Lake Washington and to view the water and the shoreline from public places

GOAL

Increase and enhance public access to and along the Mercer Island Shoreline where appropriate and consistent with public interest, provided public safety, private property rights, and unique or fragile areas are not adversely affected. POLICIES

1. Public access to and along the water’s edge should be consistent with the public safety, private property rights, and conservation of unique or fragile areas.



Page 6 of 15

2. Public access to and along the water’s edge should be available in publicly owned shoreline areas.

3. When substantial modifications or additions are proposed to substantial developments, the developer should be encouraged to provide for public access to and along the water’s edge if physically feasible provided that no private property be taken involuntarily without due compensation.

4. In new developments on the shoreline, the water’s edge should be kept free of buildings.

5. Where publicly owned shoreline areas are available for public pedestrian pathways, these should be developed as close to the water’s edge as reasonable.

6. Views of the shoreline and water from shoreline and upland areas should be preserved and enhanced. Enhancement of views should not be construed to mean excessive removal of vegetation.

7. Rights-of-way on the shoreline should be made available for public access where appropriate.

8. Access onto shoreline public street ends should be enhanced.

9. Consideration should be given to the handicapped, disabled, and elderly when developing public access to shoreline areas.

2. CONSERVATION AND WATER QUALITY

The following goal and policies address the protection of the resources of the shoreline.

GOAL

The resources and amenities of Lake Washington are to be protected and preserved for use and enjoyment by present and future generations.

POLICIES

1. Existing natural resources should be conserved, consistent with private property rights.

a. Aquatic habitats, particularly spawning grounds, should be protected, improved and, if feasible, increased.

b. Wildlife habitats should be protected, improved and, if feasible, increased.



Page 7 of 15

c. Critical areas have been mapped. Access and use should be restricted if necessary for the conservation of these areas. The type and degree of development to be allowed should be based upon such factors as: slope, soils, vegetation, geology and hydrology.

d. Water quality should be maintained at a level to permit recreational use (specifically swimming), provide a suitable habitat for desirable forms of aquatic life and satisfy other required human needs.

2. Existing and future activities on Lake Washington and its shoreline should be designed to minimize adverse effects on the natural systems.

3. Uses or activities within all drainage basins related to Lake Washington should be considered as an integral part of shoreline planning.

a. Developers should be required to bear the cost of providing safeguards to prevent storm drainage damage resulting from their development.

b. Excessive soil erosion and sedimentation and other polluting elements should be prevented from entering and adversely affecting the Lake and its constituent watercourses.

c. Restoration of natural systems adversely affected by sedimentation and pollution should be encouraged.

d. The destruction of watercourses feeding into Lake Washington should be discouraged.

e. The planning and control of surface drainage water from Mercer

Island into Lake Washington should be based on such factors as the quality and quantity of water, rate of flow and containment, etc. The latest applicable data should be used in the implementation of a storm drainage system.

4. Shoreline areas having historical, archaeological, cultural, educational or scientific value should be protected and restored.

a. Public and private cooperation should be encouraged in site preservation and protection.

b. Suspected or newly discovered archaeological sites should be kept free from intrusion until their value is determined.



Page 8 of 15

5. Festivals and temporary uses involving public interest and not substantially or permanently impairing water quality or unique and fragile areas should be permitted.

6. Protect, conserve and establish vegetation along the shoreline edge, especially native vegetation.

7. Critical areas should be protected at a level at least equal to that provided by the City’s critical area regulations adopted pursuant to the Growth Management Act.

III. SHORELINE MODIFICATIONS

1. SHORELINE STABILIZATION

The following policy addresses shoreline stabilization.

POLICY

1. Non-structural stabilization measures are preferred over “soft” structural measures. Soft structural measures are preferred over hard structural measures.

2. PIERS AND MOORAGES

The following policies address piers and moorages.

POLICIES

1. New piers and docks should be allowed only for water-dependent uses or public access. Piers and docks associated with single family residences are considered a water-dependent use.

2. New piers and docks should be designed and constructed to avoid or, if that is not possible, to minimize and mitigate the impacts to ecological functions.

3. The repair, renovation, and replacement of existing piers and docks should be allowed.

4. Property owners who repair, renovate or replace existing piers and docks should be provided information on the best materials and methods for environmental enhancement.



Page 9 of 15

3. LANDFILL AND DREDGING

Landfill is usually contemplated in locations where the water is shallow and where rooted vegetation often occurs. In their natural condition these same areas provide suitable habitat for fish and wildlife feeding, breeding and shelter. Biologically the shallow vegetation areas tend to be highly productive portions of the Lake. For these reasons governmental agencies and scientific experts have generally taken a stand against landfill.

In most cases when dredging is done it also occurs in shallow areas and may disturb the environment in the following ways: 1) temporary reduction of water clarity from suspended sediments, 2) losses in aquatic plants and animals by direct removal or from the sedimentation of suspended materials, 3) alteration in the nutrient and oxygen levels of the water column, and 4) suspension of toxic materials from the sediments into the water column.

POLICIES

1. Fills should be located, designed, and constructed to protect shoreline ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes, including channel migration.

2. Fills waterward of the ordinary high-water mark should be allowed only when necessary to support: water-dependent use, public access, cleanup and disposal of contaminated sediments as part of an interagency environmental clean-up plan, disposal of dredged material considered suitable under, and conducted in accordance with the Dredged Material Management Program of the Department of Natural Resources, expansion or alteration of transportation facilities of statewide significance currently located on the shoreline and then only upon a demonstration that alternatives to fill are not feasible, mitigation action, environmental restoration, beach nourishment or enhancement project . Fills waterward of the ordinary high-water mark for any use except ecological restoration should require a conditional use permit.

3. Dredging and dredge material disposal should be done in a manner which avoids or minimizes significant ecological impacts and impacts which cannot be avoided should be mitigated in a manner that assures no net loss of shoreline ecological functions.

4. New development should be sited and designed to avoid or, if that is not possible, to minimize the need for new and maintenance dredging. Dredging for the purpose of establishing, expanding, or relocating or reconfiguring navigation channels and basins should be allowed where necessary for assuring safe and efficient accommodation of existing navigational uses and then only when significant ecological impacts are



Page 10 of 15

minimized and when mitigation is provided. Maintenance dredging of established navigation channels and basins should be restricted to maintaining previously dredged and/or existing authorized location, depth, and width.

5. Dredging waterward of the ordinary high-water mark for the primary purpose of obtaining fill material should not be allowed, except when the material is necessary for the restoration of ecological functions. When allowed, the site where the fill is to be placed must be located waterward of the ordinary high-water mark. The project must be either associated with a MTCA or CERCLA habitat restoration project or, if approved through a shoreline conditional use permit, any other significant habitat enhancement project.

4. BREAKWATERS AND SIMILAR FEATURES

POLICY

1. The use of new breakwaters and other similar structures should be limited.

5. SHORELINE HABITAT AND NATURAL SYSTEMS ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS

POLICY

1. Foster habitat and natural system enhancement projects that are consistent with the City’s Shoreline Restoration Plan and whose primary purpose is restoration of the natural character and ecological functions of the shoreline.

IV. SPECIFIC SHORELINE USES AND ACTIVITIES

The following goal and policy address the general distribution, location, and extent of all uses within shoreline jurisdiction.

GOAL

Ensure that the land use patterns within shoreline areas are compatible with shoreline environment designations and will be sensitive to and not degrade habitat, ecological systems, and other shoreline resources.

POLICY



Page 11 of 15

1. All activities, development and redevelopment within the City’s shoreline jurisdiction should be designed to ensure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions.

1. BOATING FACILITIES

The following policies address boating facilities.

POLICIES

1. New boating facilities should be designed to meet health, safety, and welfare requirements; mitigate aesthetic impacts; minimize impacts to neighboring uses; provide public access; assure no net loss of ecological functions and prevent other significant adverse impacts; and protect the rights of navigation and access to recreational areas.

2. RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Mercer Island has approximately 15 miles of shoreline most of which is devoted to low density single family residences. It could be said that almost 100% of the developed shoreline of Mercer Island is devoted to water-dependent recreation, assuming that the waterfront residents find both active and passive enjoyment from their shoreline location. The remainder of the shoreline is set aside for public or semi-public water-related recreation except for a fraction which is utilized for bridge crossings and utilities. The latter, in some cases, is also available for public access to the water.

The City presently owns approximately 6,000 feet of shoreline which is developed as waterfront parks with facilities for swimming, fishing and car-top boat launching. Beaches at Luther Burbank Park and Groveland Beach Park are staffed with lifeguards during the summer season. Unguarded designated swimming areas also exist at Calkins Landing and Clarke Beach Park. Dock facilities that serve fishing and other activities are located at Luther Burbank Park and Proctor Landing, and seasonally at Clarke and Groveland Beaches. The City manages several summer camps for youth and adult with instruction on sailing and kayaking based at Luther Burbank Park.

Nineteen street ends of widths varying from 30’ to 75’ add an additional 600 lineal feet of shoreline to the public domain and provide the potential for considerable access to the water’s edge in all segments of the Island. Development of some street ends has been undertaken as a cooperative effort between the city and the adjacent neighborhoods. Some provide swimming access, others offer car-top launching access, others provide minimal access solely for passive enjoyment because of the limitation of size or topography, and lack of neighborhood interest and availability of funds. Three street ends were re-developed in 2003, which included eliminating bulkheads and enhancing near shore habitat.



Page 12 of 15

There are two private waterfront clubs owning a combined 1,194 feet of frontage. They provide swimming, moorage, and boat launching facilities to a significant portion of the Island’s families.

Covenant Shores, a continuing care retirement community, owns approximately 650 feet of shoreline which serves as open space, swimming, picnicking, and moorage for its residential units. Numerous private neighborhood waterfront “parks,” with shared access for neighboring residences, exist along the shoreline.

Regarding waterfront recreation, The City of Mercer Island Parks and Recreation Plan, adopted in 2007, calls for Capital improvements at 2 waterfront facilities to enhance recreation opportunities. Shoreline restoration, swim beach enhancements and dock area improvements are anticipated at Luther Burbank Park, and improved boat launching and retrieval is anticipated with planned improvements at the Mercer Island Boat Launch. Future development of Luther Burbank Park is also subject to the Luther Burbank Master Plan.

GOAL

Water-dependent recreational activities available to the public are to be encouraged and increased on the shoreline of Mercer Island where appropriate and consistent with the public interest.

POLICIES

1. Provide additional public water-oriented recreation opportunities.

2. Locate public recreational uses in shoreline areas that can support those uses without risks to human health, safety, and/or security, while minimizing effects on shoreline functions, private property rights, and/or neighboring uses.

3. Priority should be given to recreational development for access to and use of the water.

3. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

Present residential zoning on Mercer Island’s shoreline is for single family residential uses, and conditional uses that are complementary to the single family environment, such as public parks, private recreational areas, retirement homes located on properties used primarily for a place of worship, and noncommercial recreational areas. It should be noted that some of the shoreline is not yet developed as intensely as it could be under existing zoning. Several large shoreline properties now used by one family could be subdivided to allow from one to three additional residences.



Page 13 of 15

GOAL

Existing residential uses are to be recognized, and new residential construction will be subject to certain limitations where applicable.

POLICIES

1. Existing single-family residential uses will be protected. New construction or modifications should be allowed within the framework of the policies in this document and City Ordinance.

2. In single-family developments within the shoreline, the water’s edge should be kept free of buildings.

3. Public access does not include the right to enter upon private residential property without the permission of the owner.

4. New overwater residential dwellings should not be permitted.

5. Single family residences should be identified as a priority use.

4. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES

A. CIRCULATION

Principal transportation routes on Mercer Island include Inter-State 90, a highway that crosses Lake Washington via Mercer Island and two connecting bridges, and a series of arterial roads that follow the shoreline around the Island a short distance inland.

Thus, shoreline-related roads form an important element of principal transportation routes on the Island. In addition, numerous lateral roads connect the shoreline following arterials with properties along the water’s edge, and frequently provide public access to the lake through developed and undeveloped street ends as well as visual access to the lake.

A rudimentary system of pedestrian and bicycle ways has gradually developed along portions of the shoreline following arterials; more definitive development of



Page 14 of 15

such ways is planned via the City’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Facility Plan. Buses provide important modes of on-Island transportation as well as access to neighboring municipalities and employment centers.

GOAL

A balanced transportation system for moving people and goods is to be encouraged within existing corridors.

POLICIES

1. Develop efficient circulation systems in a manner that assures the safe movement of people and goods while minimizing adverse effects on shoreline use, developments and shoreline ecological functions.

2. Provide and/or enhance physical and visual public access to shorelines along public roads in accordance with the public access goals.

3. Encourage shoreline circulation systems that provide alternative routes and modes of travel. Within the I-90 corridor, allow movement of people by means of transit.

B. PARKING

The following policies address parking.

POLICIES

1. Parking facilities for motor vehicles or boat trailers should be minimized in the shoreline area.

a. Parking facilities should not be permitted along the water’s edge.

b. Upland parking facilities for shoreline activities should provide adequate pedestrian access to the shoreline.

c. Upland parking facilities should be designed and landscaped to minimize adverse impacts on the shoreline and adjacent lands.



Page 15 of 15

d. Parking facilities should be planned, located and designed where they will have the least possible adverse effect on unique or fragile shoreline features, and will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions or adversely impact existing or planned water-dependent uses.

e. Parking facilities in shorelines should minimize the environmental and visual impacts.

5. UTILITIES

The following policies address utilities.

POLICIES

1. Utility facilities should be designed and located to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions, preserve the natural landscape, and minimize conflicts with present and planned land and shoreline uses while meeting the needs of future populations.

2. Utilities should be located in existing rights of way and corridors whenever possible.


S H O R E L I N E R E S T O R A T I O N P L A N

For the City of Mercer Island Shoreline Master Program

Prepared by:

City of Mercer Island

Development Services Group

9611 SE 36th Street

Mercer Island, Washington 98040

February 23, 2011

This report was funded

in part through a grant

from the Washington

Department of Ecology.

Grant Number: 0800023


Cite this document as:

February 23, 2011. Shoreline Restoration Plan for City of Mercer Island

Shoreline Master Program. Prepared for the City of Mercer Island:

Development Services Group.


i

TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S Page #

1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 1 2 Shoreline Inventory Summary ........................................................... 2

2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 2

2.2 Shoreline Boundary .......................................................................................... 2

2.3 Inventory ............................................................................................................ 4 2.3.1 Land Use and Physical Conditions .................................................................. 4

2.3.2 Biological Resources and Critical Areas ........................................................ 6

3 Restoration Goals and Objectives .................................................... 7 4 List of Existing and Ongoing Projects and Programs .................... 9

4.1 Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 8 Participation ............................... 9

4.2 Comprehensive Plan Policies ........................................................................ 13

4.3 Critical Areas Regulations ............................................................................. 13

4.4 Stormwater Management and Planning ....................................................... 14

4.5 Public Education ............................................................................................. 15 4.5.1 Land Use Element ............................................................................................ 15

4.5.2 Utilities Element ............................................................................................... 16

4.5.3 Shoreline Goals and Policies ......................................................................... 16

4.6 Open Space Conservancy Trust ................................................................... 16

4.7 Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust ........................................................... 17

4.8 Forest Stewardship and Adopt-A-Park Programs ....................................... 17

4.9 EarthCorps ...................................................................................................... 17

5 List of Additional Projects and Programs to Achieve Local Restoration Goals ................................................................................... 18

5.1 Unfunded WRIA 8 Projects ............................................................................ 18

5.2 Recommended Projects - Public ................................................................... 19

5.3 Recommended Projects - Private .................................................................. 20

5.4 Public Education/Outreach ............................................................................ 20

6 Proposed Implementation Targets and Monitoring Methods ....... 22 7 Restoration Priorities ....................................................................... 24

7.1 Priority 1 – Continue Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 8 Participation .............................................................................................................. 25

7.2 Priority 2 – Public Education and Involvement ............................................ 25

7.3 Priority 3 – Reduce Shoreline Armoring along Lake Washington, Create or Enhance Natural Shoreline Conditions ................................................................... 26

7.4 Priority 4 – Reduction of In-water and Over-water Structures ................... 27

7.5 Priority 5 – Restore Mouths of Tributary Streams, Reduce Sediment and Pollutant Delivery to Lake Washington ................................................................... 27


ii

7.6 Priority 6 –Improve Water Quality and Reduce Sediment and Pollutant Delivery ...................................................................................................................... 28

7.7 Priority 7 – Improve Riparian Vegetation, Reduce Impervious Coverage . 29

7.8 Priority 8 – Reduce Aquatic Non-Native Invasive Weeds ........................... 29

7.9 Priority 9 – Acquisition of Shoreline Property for Preservation, Restoration, or Enhancement Purposes ................................................................. 29

7.10 Priority 10 – City Zoning, Regulatory, and Planning Policies ................. 30

8 References ........................................................................................ 32 9 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations .............................................. 34 Appendix A City of Mercer Island Resolution 1347 Ratifying the WRIA 8 Chinook

Salmon Conservation Plan

Appendix B Proposed Outreach and Education Actions

L I S T O F F I G U R E S

Figure 1: Mercer Island Shoreline Jurisdiction Including Associated Wetlands (inset) ..... 3

Figure 2: Luther Burbank Park .......................................................................................... 4

Figure 3: Clark Beach Park ............................................................................................... 5

Figure 4: Partial bulkhead removal example project ....................................................... 21

L I S T O F TA B L E S

Table 1. The Final Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8) Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan Action Start-List for Lake Washington and Status of Implementation in the City of Mercer Island ...................... 10

Table 2. Implementation Schedule and Funding for Restoration Projects, Programs and Plans. ............................................................................... 22


City of Mercer Island February 23, 2011

1

S H O R E L I N E R E S T O R AT I O N P L A N FOR CITY OF MERCER ISLAND SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM

1 INTRODUCTION A jurisdiction’s Shoreline Master Program applies to activities in the jurisdiction’s

shoreline zone. Activities that have adverse affects on the ecological functions and

values of the shoreline must provide mitigation for those impacts. By law, the

proponent of that activity is not required to return the subject shoreline to a condition

that is better than the baseline level at the time the activity takes place. How then can

the shoreline be improved over time in areas where the baseline condition is severely, or

even marginally, degraded?

Section 173‐26‐201(2)(f) WAC of the Shoreline Master Program Guidelines1 says:

“master programs shall include goals and policies that provide for restoration of

such impaired ecological functions. These master program provisions shall

identify existing policies and programs that contribute to planned restoration

goals and identify any additional policies and programs that local government

will implement to achieve its goals. These master program elements regarding

restoration should make real and meaningful use of established or funded

nonregulatory policies and programs that contribute to restoration of ecological

functions, and should appropriately consider the direct or indirect effects of

other regulatory or nonregulatory programs under other local, state, and federal

laws, as well as any restoration effects that may flow indirectly from shoreline

development regulations and mitigation standards.”

However, degraded shorelines are not just a result of pre‐Shoreline Master Program

activities, but also of unregulated activities and exempt development. The new

Guidelines also require that “[l]ocal master programs shall include regulations ensuring

that exempt development in the aggregate will not cause a net loss of ecological

functions of the shoreline.” While some actions within shoreline jurisdiction are exempt

from a permit, the Shoreline Master Program should clearly state that those actions are

1 The Shoreline Master Program Guidelines were prepared by the Washington Department of Ecology and codified as WAC 173‐26. The Guidelines translate the broad policies of the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58.020) into standards for regulation of shoreline uses. See http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sma/guidelines/index.html for more background.


City of Mercer Island Shoreline Restoration Plan

2

not exempt from compliance with the Shoreline Management Act or the local Shoreline

Master Program. Because the shoreline environment is also affected by activities taking

placed outside of a specific local master program’s jurisdiction (e.g., outside of city

limits, outside of the shoreline zone within the city), assembly of out‐of‐jurisdiction

actions, programs and policies can be essential for understanding how the City fits into

the larger watershed context. The latter is critical when establishing realistic goals and

objectives for dynamic and highly inter‐connected environments.

As directed by the Guidelines, the following discussions provides a summary of baseline

shoreline conditions, lists restoration goals and objectives, and discusses existing or

potential programs and projects that positively impact the shoreline environment.

Finally, anticipated scheduling, funding, and monitoring of these various

comprehensive restoration elements are provided. In total, implementation of the

Shoreline Master Program (with mitigation of project‐related impacts) in combination

with this Restoration Plan (for restoration of lost ecological functions that occurred prior

to a specific project) should result in a net improvement in the City of Mercer Island’s

shoreline environment in the long term.

In addition to meeting the requirements of the Guidelines, this Restoration Plan is also

intended to support the City’s or other non‐governmental organizations’ applications

for grant funding, and to provide the interested public with contact information for the

various entities working within the City to enhance the environment.

2 SHORELINE INVENTORY SUMMARY

2.1 Introduction

The City conducted a comprehensive inventory of its Lake Washington shoreline in

2008. The purpose of the shoreline inventory was to facilitate the City of Mercer Island’s

compliance with the State of Washington’s Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and

updated Shoreline Master Program Guidelines. The inventory describes existing

physical and biological conditions in the Lake Washington shoreline zone within City

limits, including recommendations for restoration of ecological functions where they are

degraded. The full Final Shoreline Analysis Report is included as an appendix to the

Shoreline Master Program, and is summarized below.

2.2 Shoreline Boundary As defined by the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, shorelines include certain

waters of the state plus their associated “shorelands.” Shorelands are defined as:



3

“those lands extending landward for 200 feet in all directions as measured on a

horizontal plane from the ordinary high water mark; floodways and contiguous

floodplain areas landward 200 feet from such floodways; and all wetlands and

river deltas associated with the streams, lakes, and tidal waters which are subject

to the provisions of this chapter…Any county or city may determine that portion

of a one‐hundred‐year‐floodplain2 to be included in its master program as long

as such portion includes, as a minimum, the floodway and the adjacent land

extending landward two hundred feet therefrom (RCW 90.58.030)”

Shorelands in the City of Mercer Island include only areas within 200 feet of the

ordinary high water mark, as established by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for Lake

Washington, and any associated wetlands within shoreline jurisdiction. As part of the

shoreline jurisdiction assessment, there were two wetlands identified in Luther Burbank

Park that extend the shoreline jurisdiction beyond 200 feet from the Lake Washington

ordinary high water mark (Figure 1). Lake Washington does not have a floodway or

floodplain.

Figure 1: Mercer Island Shoreline Jurisdiction Including Associated Wetlands (inset)

2 According to RCW 173‐220‐030, 100‐year floodplain is “that land area susceptible to being inundated by stream derived waters with a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The limit of this area shall be based upon flood ordinance regulation maps or a reasonable method which meets the objectives of the act;”



4

2.3 Inventory The shoreline inventory is divided into five main sections: Introduction, Current

Regulatory Framework Summary, Shoreline Inventory, Analysis of Ecological Functions

and Ecosystem‐wide Processes, Land Use Analysis and Shoreline Management

Recommendations. The City’s shoreline jurisdiction is divided into two segments:

Urban Residential, and Urban Park. These segments are based on existing land use and

zoning, as well as the City’s current environment designations.

2.3.1 Land Use and Physical Conditions

Existing Land Use

In general, the City of Mercer Island shoreline area is fully developed. The few areas not

occupied by single or multi‐family residential uses are either private recreation clubs,

vacant lots, City parks or landings. With the possible exception of limited additional

residential lands being acquired for public open space, land uses along the shoreline are

not expected to change over the next 20 years, although re‐builds, substantial remodels

and some redevelopment of single‐family residential are anticipated. The City’s

shoreline is predominately zoned single‐family residential (R‐8.4, R‐9.6, R‐12 and R‐15).

Residential and private club uses (Urban Residential designation) comprise 90.4 percent

of the City’s shoreline area, Luther Burbank Park (Urban Park designation) comprises 6

percent, and public recreation and open space (Urban Park designation) comprise the

remaining 3.6 percent of the shoreline area. There are five City parks, one City boat

launch, two private recreational clubs, and one private retirement facility on the

waterfront. There are also 13 City‐owned street ends (“landings”) located within the

shoreline area. The Mercerwood Shore Club and Mercer Island Beach Club are private

waterfront recreation clubs that include clubhouses, picnic areas, swimming beaches,

tennis and fitness facilities, boat moorage, and other amenities. Covenant Shores

retirement center includes private boat moorage and other similar private recreational

opportunities. There are 57 privately owned lots (roughly 6%) within the shoreline

jurisdiction that are considered vacant or undeveloped, 44 of which are along the

shoreline. Of those 44 properties, only 10 have development potential.

Parks and Open Space/Public Access

There are a number of

opportunities to access the Mercer

Island waterfront, whether at

public parks, landings or the City

boat launch. Luther Burbank Park

is the City’s largest multi‐use park

and is considered the crown jewel

of the park system (Figure 2). The

park is 77 acres and includes a

swimming beach, public boat

Figure 2: Luther Burbank Park Resolution No. 1440 - Attachment A Page 65


5

dock, public fishing pier, former Luther Burbank School brick dormitory, steam plant

and dairy ruins, trails, off‐leash dog area, and other groomed and wooded areas.

Calkins Point, located on the north end of the park, has been slowly eroding away and

has been identified by the City as a high‐priority for shoreline restoration.

Other parks located along the shoreline include Clarke Beach (Figure 3), Groveland

Beach, Slater Park, and Park on the Lid. These parks provide multiple opportunities for

water‐related recreational uses, including swimming, fishing, picnicking, and active and

passive recreation. Mercer Island Boat Launch is located along the City’s northeast shore

and provides a Lakes‐to‐Locks Water Trail Launch and Landing Site.

There are 13 street‐end public

rights‐of‐way into public spaces

and parks that provide access to the

waterfront. The landings, which

vary in the level of development,

include swimming and fishing

areas, boat launch facilities and

docks. A few of the landings

remain undeveloped and provide

opportunities for future restoration

or improvements.

Shoreline Modifications

The Mercer Island shoreline is heavily modified with close to 78 percent of the shoreline

armored at or near the ordinary high water mark and a pier density of approximately

47.5 overwater structures per mile. This compares to 71 percent armored and 36 piers

per mile for the entire Lake Washington shoreline. Thus, for Mercer Island, both pier

density and shoreline armoring are slightly higher than the lake‐wide figures. Many of

the piers have one or more boatlifts.

As expected, the Urban Residential segment has the most altered shoreline, with 82

percent armored with either vertical or boulder bulkheads. The Urban Park segment is

35 percent armored. It is not uncommon around Lake Washington for some historic fills

to be associated with the original bulkhead construction, usually to create a more level

or larger yard. Most of these shoreline fills occurred at the time that the lake elevation

was lowered during construction of the Hiram Chittenden Locks.

Also as expected, the highest amount of overwater cover per lineal foot of shoreline can

be found in the Urban Residential segment. This can be attributed to the presence of a

Figure 3: Clark Beach Park



6

number of residential homes within this segment, as well as two beach clubs which have

marinas.

The full shoreline inventory includes a more in‐depth of discussion of the above topics,

as well as information about transportation, stormwater and wastewater utilities,

impervious surfaces, and historical/archaeological sites, among others.

2.3.2 Biological Resources and Critical Areas

With the exception of some portions of the shoreline along Luther Burbank Park (Urban

Park), the shoreline zone itself is generally deficient in high‐quality biological resources

and critical areas, primarily because of the extensive residential development and its

associated shoreline modifications. There are a number of City parks along the

shoreline, but a majority of these are mostly well manicured and include extensive

shoreline armoring or pier and dock structures. The highest‐functioning shoreline area

is Luther Burbank Park, which contains a majority of the City’s last unaltered shoreline.

There are also a few City‐owned landings which are undeveloped, but these are

surrounded by residential development and do not cover an extensive area of the

shoreline area. Virtually all of the Mercer Island shoreline is encumbered by

geologically hazard areas, including seismic, erosion and landslide areas. According to

City data, there are two wetlands inventoried within shoreline jurisdiction, both of

which are located in Luther Burbank Park. There are a number of streams that discharge

into Lake Washington, including 39 perennial streams, 13 of which have been identified

as having potential for fish use near their mouth to Lake Washington. These streams are

used by Chinook, coho, and sockeye salmon, as well as cutthroat trout. Many of the

smaller tributaries to Lake Washington originate as hillside seeps or springs and flow

seasonally or during periods of heavy rains. Many of these smaller systems are piped at

some point and discharge directly to Lake Washington via a closed system. These

streams have been impacted extensively by basin development, resulting in increased

peak flows, unstable and eroding banks, loss of riparian vegetation, and fish and debris

passage barriers. These changes have altered their contributions of sediment, organic

debris, and invertebrates into Lake Washington.

WDFW mapping of Priority Habitat and Species (WDFW 2008) also indicates the

presence of other Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas within and adjacent to

the shoreline zone. These include historic and current bald eagle nest locations,

wetlands, and urban natural open space (parks and other green spaces). Segments B

and C, Urban Park and Urban Residential respectively, generally do not contain any

significant fish or other wildlife habitats other than Lake Washington. Extensive

residential and park development, which includes landscaping and shoreline

modifications, has removed much of the potential for riparian habitat.



7

3 RESTORATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES According to the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA) Near‐Term

Action Agenda For Salmon Habitat Conservation, Lake Washington suffers from

“Altered trophic interactions (predation, competition), degradation of riparian shoreline

conditions, altered hydrology, invasive exotic plants, poor water quality (phosphorus,

alkalinity, pH), [and] poor sediment quality” (WRIA 8 Steering Committee 2002).

Mercer Island’s Final Shoreline Analysis Report (The Watershed Company 2009)

provides supporting information that validates these claims specifically in the City’s

shoreline jurisdiction. The WRIA 8 Action Agenda established four “ecosystem

objectives,” which are intended to guide development and prioritization of restoration

actions and strategies. The objectives are as follows:

“Maintain, restore, or enhance watershed processes that create habitat

characteristics favorable to salmon.

Maintain or enhance habitat required by salmon during all life stages and

maintain functional corridors linking these habitats.

Maintain a well‐dispersed network of high‐quality refuge habitats to serve as

centers of population expansion.

Maintain connectivity between high‐quality habitats to allow for population

expansion into recovered habitat as degraded systems recover.”

The WRIA 8 restoration objectives, in combination with the results of the City’s Final

Shoreline Analysis Report, the direction of Ecology’s Shoreline Master Program

Guidelines, and the City’s commitment (Appendix A) to support the Final Lake

Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8) Chinook Salmon Conservation

Plan, are the foundation for the following goals and objectives of the City of Mercer

Island’s restoration strategy. Although the WRIA 8 Action Agenda and the Final Lake


Plan are salmon‐centered, pursuit of ecosystem‐wide processes and ecological functions

performance that favors salmon generally captures those processes and functions that

benefit all fish and wildlife.

Goal 1 – Maintain, restore or enhance watershed processes, including sediment,

water, wood, light and nutrient delivery, movement and loss.

Goal 2 – Maintain or enhance fish and wildlife habitat during all life stages and

maintain functional corridors linking these habitats.

Goal 3 – Contribute to conservation and recovery of chinook salmon and other

anadromous fish, focusing on preserving, protecting and restoring habitat with the

intent to recover listed species, including sustainable, genetically diverse, harvestable

populations of naturally spawning chinook salmon.



8

System‐wide restoration objectives

Continue to work collaboratively with other jurisdictions and stakeholders in

WRIA 8 to implement the Final Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish

Watershed (WRIA 8) Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan.

Use the scientific foundation and the conservation strategy as the basis for

local actions recommended in the Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan and as

one source of best available science for future projects, ordinances, and other

appropriate local government activities.

Use the comprehensive list of actions, and other actions consistent with the

Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan, as a source of potential site‐specific

projects and land use and public outreach recommendations.

Use the start‐list to guide priorities for regional funding in the first ten years

of Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan implementation, and implementing

start‐list actions through local capital improvement projects, ordinances, and

other activities.

Seek funding for various restoration actions and programs from local sources

and by working with other WRIA 8 jurisdictions and stakeholders to seek

federal, state, grant and other funding opportunities.

Develop a public education plan to inform private property owners in the

shoreline zone and in the remainder of the City about the effects of land

management practices and other unregulated activities (such as vegetation

removal, pesticide/herbicide use, car washing) on fish and wildlife habitats.

Lake Washington restoration objectives

Improve Lake Washington and Lake Washington tributary stream health by

managing the quality and quantity of stormwater runoff, consistent at a

minimum with the latest Washington Department of Ecology Stormwater

Management Manual for Western Washington. Make any additional efforts

to meet and maintain state and county water quality standards in Lake

Washington tributary streams.

Improve Lake Washington tributary stream health by eliminating man‐made

barriers to anadromous fish passage, preventing the creation of new barriers,

and providing for transport of water, sediment and organic matter at all

stream crossings.


identifying hardened and eroding lakeshores and streambanks, and

correcting to the extent feasible with bioengineered stabilization solutions.


increasing large woody debris recruitment potential through plantings of



9

trees in the riparian corridors, particularly conifers. Where feasible, install

large woody debris to meet short‐term needs.

Increase quality, width and diversity of native vegetation in protected

corridors adjacent to stream and lake habitats to provide safe migration

pathways for fish and wildlife, food, nest sites, shade, perches, and organic

debris. Strive to control non‐indigenous plants or weeds that are proven

harmful to native vegetation or habitats.

Reconnect and enhance small creek mouths as juvenile rearing areas.

Habitat in small Lake Washington tributaries, such as those in the City of

Mercer Island, should be restored for coho so that production of cutthroat

trout, which prey on juvenile chinook salmon in Lake Washington, is

reduced.

Decrease the amount and impact of overwater and in‐water structures

through minimization of structure size and use of innovative materials such

as grated decking.

Participate in lake‐wide efforts to reduce populations of non‐native aquatic

vegetation.

4 LIST OF EXISTING AND ONGOING

PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS The following series of existing projects and programs are generally organized from the

larger watershed scale to the City‐scale, including City projects and programs and

finally non‐profit organizations that are also active in the Mercer Island area.

4.1 Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 8 Participation Mercer Island has taken advantage of outreach and education offered by WRIA 8 staff

on salmon‐friendly shoreline landscape design. Mercer Island continues to be involved

in the Forum at both the elected official and staff level. The City was one of 27 members

of the WRIA 8 Forum, which participated in financing and developing the Final Lake


Plan. The Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan includes the City of Mercer Island’s

implementation commitment in the form of City Council Resolution 1347, approved

September 6, 2005 (Appendix A).

The City’s preparation of the Shoreline Analysis Report Including Shoreline Inventory

and Characterization of the City of Mercer Island’s Lake Washington Shoreline (The

Watershed Company 2009) and this Shoreline Restoration Plan are important steps



10

toward furthering the goals and objectives of the WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation

Plan. The City’s Shoreline Master Program update products rely heavily on the science

included in the WRIA 8 products, and incorporate recommended actions from the

WRIA 8 products (Table 1).

To review, the WRIA 8 Steering Committee’s mission and goal statements state that the

Plan shall: 1) recognize that local governments are key implementing entities for the

plan, because of their responsibilities for land use, 2) direct most future population

growth to already urbanized areas, because new development has greater negative

effects on hydrology and ecological health of streams in rural than in urban areas, 3)

create incentives for behavior that would support Plan goals, and 4) be coordinated with

the Growth Management Act, local and regional responses to the Clean Water Act, other

environmental laws and past/current planning efforts.

The Plan presents an Action Start‐List that attempts to compile the land use, site‐specific

habitat protection and restoration projects, and public outreach and education

recommendations into a single strategy list which focuses watershed priorities yet also

provides a manageable number of actions. Conservation priority actions identified for

WRIA 8 chinook salmon habitat within Lake Washington included in the Plan are as

follows:

Reduce predation on juvenile migrants in Lake Washington by providing

increased rearing and refuge opportunities.

Restore shallow water habitats and creek mouths for juvenile rearing and

migration.

Table 1. The Final Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8) Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan Action Start-List for Lake Washington and Status of Implementation in the City of Mercer Island

Action Item Mercer Island Implementation

Reduce predation to outmigrating juvenile chinook by: reducing bank hardening,

restoring overhanging riparian vegetation, replacing bulkhead and rip‐rap with sandy

beaches with gentle slopes, and use of mesh dock surfaces and/or community docks.

Encourage salmon friendly shoreline design during

new construction or redevelopment by offering

incentives and regulatory flexibility to improve

bulkhead and dock design and revegetate

shorelines.

The proposed SMP includes provisions

that ensure salmon friendly shoreline

design for new construction and

redevelopment, including requirements

for grated decking and shoreline

vegetation…

The City has done two projects

demonstrating these techniques at public

Right of Way street ends on the



11


shoreline. The recently completed

shoreline restoration at Luther Burbank

Park also demonstrates salmon friendly

shoreline design.

Increase enforcement and address nonconforming

structures over long run by requiring that major

redevelopment projects meet current standards.

Code enforcement is responsible for

enforcing regulations which address

public health and safety issues, including

regulations related to rubbish, garbage,

specific nuisances, removal of vegetation,

zoning, housing, dangerous buildings,

and inoperable and unlicensed vehicles

on private property. Enforcement actions

are taken both proactively and in

response to requests for action received

from citizens. The City has not recently

updated its code enforcement.

Discourage construction of new bulkheads; offer

incentives (e.g., provide expertise, expedite

permitting) for voluntary removal of bulkheads,

beach improvement, riparian revegetation.

The proposed SMP includes provisions

that discourage construction of new

bulkheads by limiting new bulkheads to

only those properties that can show a

demonstrated need through a

geotechnical analysis.

Support joint effort by NOAA Fisheries and other

agencies to develop dock/pier specifications to

streamline federal/state/local permitting; encourage

similar effort for bulkhead specifications.

The City has been coordinating on a

regular basis with state and federal

agencies to help develop consistent pier

and bulkhead design standards,

including coordination with adjacent

jurisdictions.

Promote value of light‐permeable docks, smaller

piling sizes, and community docks to both salmon

and landowners through direct mailings to

lakeshore landowners or registered boat owners

sent with property tax notice or boat registration tab

renewal.

The City has hosted workshops for

lakeshore owners which has highlighted

the value of eco‐friendly pier

construction. This includes King County

Lakeshore Living and Greenshorelines

workshops.

Develop workshop series specifically for lakeshore

property owners on lakeside living: natural yard

care, alternatives to vertical wall bulkheads, fish

friendly dock design, best management practices for

aquatic weed control, porous paving, and

environmentally friendly methods of maintaining

boats, docks, and decks.

King County has led this effort. As

mentioned above, the City has hosted

workshops on this topic in the past

(Lakeshore Living and Greenshorelines).

This work is expected to continue in the

near future.

Protect and restore water quality in tributaries and along shoreline. Restore coho runs

in smaller tributaries as control mechanism to reduce the cutthroat population.

Reconnect and enhance small creek mouths as juvenile rearing areas.



12


Address water quality and high flow impacts from

creeks and shoreline development through NPDES

Phase 1 and Phase 2 permit updates, consistent with

Washington Department of Ecology’s 2001

Stormwater Management Manual, including low

impact development techniques, on‐site stormwater

detention for new and redeveloped projects, and

control of point sources that discharge directly into

the lakes.

The City currently implements Ecology’s

2005 Stormwater Management Manual for

Western Washington through its NPDES

Phase 2 permit. The NPDES Phase II

permit is required to cover the City’s

stormwater discharges into regulated

lakes and streams. Under the conditions

of the permit, the City must protect and

improve water quality through public

education and outreach, detection and

elimination of illicit non‐stormwater

discharges (e.g., spills, illegal dumping,

wastewater), management and

regulation of construction site runoff,

management and regulation of runoff

from new development and

redevelopment, and pollution prevention

and maintenance for municipal

operations.

Encourage low impact development through

regulations, incentives, education/training, and

demonstration projects.

The Comprehensive Plan and the

proposed SMP contain provisions which

promote LID, including allowance of

storm water strategies that minimize the

creation of impervious surfaces, and

measures to minimize the disturbance of

native soils and vegetation.

The City has already identified a short

list of good candidates for LID

demonstration projects at City facilities

that will be completed in the future.

Protect and restore water quality and other

ecological functions in tributaries to reduce effects

of urbanization and reduce conditions which

encourage cutthroat. Protect and restore forest

cover, riparian buffers, wetlands, and creek mouths

by revising and enforcing critical areas ordinances

and Shoreline Master Programs, incentives, and

flexible development tools.

The City updated the Critical Areas

Ordinance in 2005. Management of the

City’s critical areas using these

regulations should help insure that

ecological functions and values are not

degraded, and impacts to critical areas

are mitigated.

The City also coordinates ongoing

Maintenance activities, specifically with

drainage basins, with open spaces

improvements on adjoining properties.

The City currently implements the 2004

Open Space Vegetation Plan (City of

Mercer Island 2004) which promotes



13


funding to support eradication and

control of invasive and non‐native

plants.

Promote through design competitions and media

coverage the use of “rain gardens” and other low

impact development practices that mimic natural

hydrology.

The City actively promotes rain garden

and LID education through local news

media and support for ongoing

workshops.

4.2 Comprehensive Plan Policies The City updated its Comprehensive Plan on July 5, 2005. The updated Comprehensive

Plan, specifically the Conservation Element of the Shoreline Goals and Policies, contains

a number of general and specific goals and policies that direct the City to permit and

condition development in such a way that the natural environment is preserved and

enhanced. The specific goals and policies include:

Goal: The resources and amenities of Lake Washington are to be protected and

preserved for use and enjoyment by present and future generations.

Policy 1: Existing natural resources should be conserved, consistent with

private property rights.

Policy 2: Existing and future activities on Lake Washington and its shoreline

should be designed to minimize adverse effects on the natural

systems.

Policy 3: Uses or activities within all drainage basins related to Lake

Washington should be considered as an integral part of shoreline

planning.

Policy 4: Shoreline areas having historical, archaeological, cultural, educational

or scientific value should be protected and restored.

Techniques suggested by the various policies to protect the natural environment include

requiring setbacks from sensitive areas, preserving habitats for sensitive species,

preventing adverse alterations to water quality and quantity, promoting low impact

development, preserving existing native vegetation, educating the public, and

mitigating necessary sensitive area impacts, among others.

4.3 Critical Areas Regulations The City of Mercer Island critical areas regulations are found in Mercer Island City Code

Chapter 19.07 Environment. The City completed its last critical areas regulations update



14

on 2005. The updated regulations are based on best available science, and provide

protection to critical areas in the City, particularly for streams and wetlands. All

activities which require a substantial development permit, conditional use or variance

under the SMP are reviewed under the City’s CAO for consistency. As stated above, if

there is a conflict between the CAO and SMP, the regulations that offer the greatest

environmental protection apply.

Some of the basic components of the critical areas regulations include a four‐tiered

watercourse typing system with standard buffers ranging between 25 and 75 feet, and

Ecology’s four‐tiered wetland rating system with standard buffers ranging from 35 to

100 feet. Management of the City’s critical areas using these regulations should help

insure that ecological functions and values are not degraded, and impacts to critical

areas are mitigated. These critical areas regulations are one important tool that will help

the City meet its restoration goals.

4.4 Stormwater Management and Planning Although much of the City of Mercer Island’s Storm and Surface Water Utility’s

jurisdiction is outside of the shoreline zone, all of the regulated surface waters, both

natural and piped, are discharged ultimately into Lake Washington and thus affect

shoreline conditions. According to the City’s GIS data, there are 208 known stormwater

outfalls, 187 of which are located within the shoreline jurisdiction area (see Figures 5.1 ‐

5.3). The City’s Utilities section of the Comprehensive Plan contains the following

stormwater policies:

4.1 The City shall continue to implement programs and projects designed to

meet the goals and requirements of the Puget Sound Water Quality

Management Plan.

4.2 The City shall actively promote and support education efforts focusing on

all facets of stormwater management.

4.3 The City shall maintain and enforce land‐use plans and ordinances

requiring stormwater controls for new development and re‐development.

The ordinances shall be based on standards developed by the state

Department of Ecology and shall be consistent with the policies in the

Land‐Use Element of this plan and the goals and policies of the Cityʹs

Development Services Group.

The City received its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II

Municipal Stormwater Permit in January 2007 from Ecology. The NPDES Phase II

permit is required to cover the City’s stormwater discharges into regulated lakes and

streams. Under the conditions of the permit, the City must protect and improve water

quality through public education and outreach, detection and elimination of illicit non‐

stormwater discharges (e.g., spills, illegal dumping, wastewater), management and

regulation of construction site runoff, management and regulation of runoff from new



15

development and redevelopment, and pollution prevention and maintenance for

municipal operations (City of Mercer Island website).

In 2007, the Department of Ecology published information about toxics levels in fish,

including fish sampled in Lake Washington (Department of Ecology 2007). Lake

Washington ranked second only to the Wenatchee River near Leavenworth for a site

contaminant score. Although this report does not identify specific point sources, it

represents a clear need to better understand contaminant sources and control.

The City’s 2004 Open Space Vegetation Plan (City of Mercer Island 2004) was prioritized by multiple factors including storm water buffering and erosion control. It directs work to sites where it would most likely improve storm water buffering and erosion control.

4.5 Public Education The City of Mercer Island’s Comprehensive Plan identifies various policy statements

based on the goal of environmental public involvement (excerpted below). These items

help guide City staff and local citizen groups in developing mechanisms to educate the

public and broaden the interest in protecting and enhancing local environmental

resources.

4.5.1 Land Use Element

Natural Environment Policies

Goal 10: The protection of the natural environment will continue to be a priority in

all Island development. Protection of the environment and private

property rights will be consistent with all state and federal laws.

Policy 10.1 The City of Mercer Island shall protect environmentally sensitive

lands such as watercourses, geologic hazard areas, steep slopes,

shorelines, wildlife habitat conservation areas, and wetlands. Such

protection should continue through the implementation and

enforcement of critical areas and shoreline regulations.

Policy 10.2 Land use actions, storm water regulations and basin planning should

reflect intent to maintain and improve the ecological health of

watercourses and Lake Washington water quality.

Policy 10.3 New development should be designed to avoid increasing risks to

people and property associated with natural hazards.



16

Policy 10.4 The ecological functions of watercourses, wetlands, and habitat

conservation areas should be maintained and protected from the

potential impacts associated with development.

Policy 10.5 The City shall consider best available science during the development

and implementation of critical areas regulations. Regulations will be

updated periodically to incorporate new information and, at a

minimum, every seven years as required by the Growth Management

Act.

4.5.2 Utilities Element

Water Quality Policies

Policy 2.8 The City shall aggressively promote and support water conservation

on Mercer Island and shall participate in regional water conservation

activities. The goal of the Cityʹs efforts shall be a significant and

lasting reduction in Mercer Islandʹs peak water consumption. In 1999

the City decided to participate in SPU’s 1% Water Conservation

Initiative, and continues to receive information and assistance in

reducing water consumption in City facilities and in the community.

Stormwater Policies

Policy 4.2 The City shall actively promote and support education efforts

focusing on all facets of stormwater management.

4.5.3 Shoreline Goals and Policies

Conservation Element

Policy 4.a. Public and private cooperation should be encouraged in site

preservation and protection.

As part of the City of Mercer Island’s efforts to abide by these goals and policies, the

City supports several volunteer efforts, such as Mountains to Sound Greenway

sponsored events, Open Space Conservancy Trust, Forest Stewardship, Forest

Stewardship training, Adopt‐a‐Park and EarthCorps.

4.6 Open Space Conservancy Trust The Open Space Conservancy Trust, established by Mercer Island City Council in 1992,

“was created for the express purpose of receiving and holding such real property, as

transferred for open space purposes; for protecting, maintaining and preserving the



17

Open Space Properties; and insuring that the development and use of the Open Space

Properties are both consistent and compatible with the intent and purpose of the Trust

and the guidelines and polices enacted.” The trust is led by a seven member volunteer

board consisting of six citizens appointed by the Mayor and one City Council member.

The trust currently holds Pioneer Park as its sole property.

Contact Information: http://www.ci.mercer‐island.wa.us/ccbindex.asp?ccbid=12

4.7 Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust Mountains to Sound (MTS) Greenway Trust, a nonprofit organization founded in 1991,

assists local, state, and federal agencies to acquire open space lands for permanent

protection in order to create a 100‐mile connected green corridor along Interstate 90.

Within the City of Mercer Island, MTS organizes and leads volunteers to improve City

parks by removing invasive plants (primarily ivy) and planting native trees and shrubs.

Mercer Island Parks and Recreation has teamed up with MTS and a number of other

groups and organizations to host several volunteer events throughout the year.

Contact Information: http://www.miparks.org/, http://www.mtsgreenway.org/

4.8 Forest Stewardship and Adopt-A-Park Programs Citizens of Mercer Island donate countless hours to maintain the City’s open spaces and

parks through picking up litter, cutting ivy, planting and trail maintenance and repair.

Forest Stewardship provides opportunities for citizens to be active with City‐sponsored

projects or work individually with other volunteers. Forest Stewardship training

provides the skills to become Forest Stewards who are qualified to run volunteer

projects on the island on behalf of the Parks and Recreation Department.

The City’s Adopt‐a‐Park program allows local schools or services groups to adopt a City

park. The program benefits schoolchildren, who learn valuable stewardship skills, and

the public who benefit from the restoration efforts.

Contact Information: [email protected], http://www.ci.mercer‐

island.wa.us/Page.asp?NavID=1515

4.9 EarthCorps EarthCorps is a non‐profit organization that provides environmental restoration service

programs for young adults. These one‐year programs provide opportunities to learn

conservation and develop skills in leading volunteers. EarthCorps works with Mercer

Island Parks and Recreation to organize and lead restoration projects, such as removing

invasive plants and planting native species.



18

Contact Information: [email protected], http://www.earthcorps.org/volunteer.php

5 LIST OF ADDITIONAL PROJECTS AND

PROGRAMS TO ACHIEVE LOCAL

RESTORATION GOALS The following series of additional projects and programs are generally organized from the larger watershed scale to the City-scale, including City projects and programs and finally non-profit organizations that are also active in the Mercer Island area.

5.1 Unfunded WRIA 8 Projects The 2005 Final Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8) Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan does not identify any specific projects along the Mercer Island shoreline, but does include the following general recommendations to reduce predation on outmigrating juvenile chinook salmon in its “Action Start-List for Migratory Areas”:

• Encourage salmon friendly shoreline design during new construction or redevelopment by offering incentives and regulatory flexibility to improve bulkhead and dock design and revegetate shorelines. Increase enforcement and address nonconforming structures over long run by requiring that major redevelopment projects meet current standards.

• Discourage construction of new bulkheads; offer incentives (e.g., provide expertise, expedite permitting) for voluntary removal of bulkheads, beach improvement, riparian revegetation.

• Support joint effort by NOAA Fisheries and other agencies to develop dock/pier specifications to streamline federal/state/local permitting; encourage similar effort for bulkhead specifications.

• Promote value of light-permeable docks, smaller piling sizes, and community docks to both salmon and landowners through direct mailings to lakeshore landowners or registered boat owners sent with property tax notice or boat registration tab renewal. Offer financial incentives for community docks in terms of reduced permit fees, loan fees/percentage rates, taxes, and permitting time, in addition to construction cost savings.

• Develop workshop series specifically for lakeshore property owners on lakeside living: natural yard care, alternatives to vertical wall bulkheads, fish friendly dock design, best management practices for aquatic weed control, porous paving, and environmentally friendly methods of maintaining boats, docks, and decks. Related efforts include creation of a website to convey workshop material, an awareness campaign, “Build a Beach,” to illuminate impact of bulkheads on development of sandy beaches.



19

• Restore shoreline in Lake Washington Section 1: work with private property owners to restore shoreline in Section 1. Use interpretive signage where possible to explain restoration efforts.

5.2 Recommended Projects - Public The following is developed from a list of opportunity areas identified within the Final Shoreline Analysis Report (The Watershed Company 2009) and is intended to contribute to improvement of impaired functions on public property. The list of recommended projects was created after reviewing the City’s CIP list and assessing field conditions during the shoreline inventory and characterization phase. Luther Burbank Park Two restoration projects listed in the City’s CIP include:

Luther Burbank Shoreline Restoration (Summer 2008): removing non-native plant species, replant native vegetation, create recreation access beaches, develop habitat and maintain trail opportunities, stabilize soft banks.

Luther Burbank Off-Leash Area (OLA) (2008): design and construct minor

drainage, surfacing, shoreline, landscaping and fencing improvements in OLA.

Restoration opportunities not included in the City’s CIP include:

In October 2005, Anchor Environmental, LLC. prepared a Shoreline Habitat Inventory that identified a number of restoration opportunities along the shoreline. Many of these have been completed or are included in the City’s CIP. However, the inventory contains several items not included in the CIP, which represent future opportunities. These include restoration of several stretches (18, 20, 21) along the shoreline. Restoration would include placement of beach nourishment, removal of invasive plants, and planting of native plants to increase overhanging vegetation.

Street-Ends (Landings) and Residential Shoreline Properties There are two projects listed in the City’s 2007-2008 6-Year Capital Improvement Program. Both projects are currently planned for implementation in 2013.

Groveland Beach Park: Remove invasive vegetation, replace worn playground elements, and prepare shoreline improvements.

Clarke Beach Park: Removal of up to 300 linear feet of concrete retaining wall/bulkhead/barrier at Clarke Beaches.

Many of the parks, street-ends and residential shoreline properties along the

shoreline have the potential for improvement of ecological functions through: 1)



20

reduction or modification of shoreline armoring, 2) reduction of overwater cover and in-water structures (grated pier decking, pier size reduction, pile size and quantity reduction, moorage cover removal), 3) improvements to nearshore native vegetative cover, and/or 4) reductions in impervious surface coverage.

Open Space – Vegetation Management Many parks located on Mercer Island are heavily invaded by non-native invasive species that will eventually damage and destroy forest canopies. Opportunities exist to provide vegetation and property management in existing open space areas. This will improve shoreline and upland habitat areas within the City.

5.3 Recommended Projects - Private Generally, restoration opportunities which have been identified are focused on City property, including parks, open spaces, and street-ends. Many other restoration opportunities exist throughout the City on private property. These opportunities would include many of the same issues as listed above, but would likely occur only through voluntary means or through re-development proposals. General: Many shoreline properties have the potential for improvement of ecological functions through: 1) reduction or modification of shoreline armoring, 2) reduction of overwater cover and in-water structures (grated pier decking, pier size reduction, pile size and quantity reduction, moorage cover removal), 3) improvements to nearshore native vegetative cover, and/or 4) reductions in impervious surface coverage. Similar opportunities would also apply to undeveloped lots which may be used as community lots for upland properties or local street-ends and utility corridors. Other opportunities may exist to improve either fish habitat or fish passage for those properties which have streams discharging to Lake Washington. An example of how shoreline armoring might be reduced on some lots along the City’s residential areas is depicted below (Figure 4). This example displays before and after images of a lot in which the existing bulkhead is partially pulled back to create a shallow cove beach combined with natural materials. This example combines the effort to improve habitat conditions with improved access and aesthetics. Restoration of Multiple Contiguous Properties: Through grant funding sources, restoration opportunities may be available to multiple contiguous shoreline properties, including residential lots that are interested in improving shoreline function. Restoring shoreline properties that are connected to one another would provide significantly more benefits than a more piecemeal approach. Therefore, priority should be given to restoration projects which involve multiple lots (such as accelerated permit processes).

5.4 Public Education/Outreach The Final Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8) Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan includes a table outlining 53 “Outreach and Education Actions” with target audiences for each action ranging from the general public, to shoreline property



21

owners in general, to lakeshore property owners specifically, to businesses, to youth, and others. The complete list of WRIA 8 “Outreach and Education Actions” is included as Appendix B.

Figure 4: Partial bulkhead removal example project



22

6 PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION TARGETS

AND MONITORING METHODS As previously noted, the City’s shoreline zone is occupied by single‐ and multi‐family

residences, and public recreation/open spaces. Therefore, efforts should be made to

improve shoreline ecological function through the promotion of restoration and healthy

practices at all levels, from large‐scale marina users to single‐family property owners.

The City of Mercer Island already has a very active environmental community with a

restoration and education focus. Continued improvement of shoreline ecological

functions on the shoreline requires a more comprehensive watershed approach, which

combines upland and shoreline projects and programs.

The following table (Table 2) outlines a possible schedule and funding sources for

implementation of a variety of efforts that could improve shoreline ecological function,

and are described in previous sections of this report

Table 2. Implementation Schedule and Funding for Restoration Projects, Programs and Plans.

Restoration

Project/Program Schedule Funding Source or Commitment

4.1 WRIA 8 Participation Ongoing

The City is an active member of the WRIA 8 Forum.

Membership at this time entails a commitment of staff

and elected official time.

4.2 Comprehensive Plan

Policies Ongoing

The City makes a substantial commitment of staff time

in the course of project and program reviews to

determine consistency and compliance with the

recently updated Comprehensive Plan. The next

Comprehensive Plan update will occur in 2010.

4.3 Critical Areas

Regulations Ongoing

The City makes a substantial commitment of staff time

in the course of project and program reviews to

determine consistency and compliance with their

recently updated Critical Areas Regulations.

4.4 Stormwater Planning Ongoing

Currently, staff time and materials are the only City

resource commitments. The City currently follows its

2008 Stormwater Management Program which

implements the City’s Phase II NPDES permit and

reports annually to Ecology. The City is also involved

in the implementation of the 2005 Surface Water Master

Plan, which goals includes flood reduction, water

quality improvements and aquatic habitat

improvements. The City also is in full compliance with

NPDES permit requirements for Phase II cities.

4.5 Public Education Ongoing Currently, staff time and materials are provided in



23

Restoration

Project/Program Schedule Funding Source or Commitment

developing public education and outreach efforts,

which are highlighted in the Comprehensive Plan

policy statement based on the goal of natural resource

protection. These items help guide City staff and local

citizen groups in developing mechanisms to educate

the public and broaden the interest in protecting and

enhancing local environmental resources.

4.6 Open Space

Conservancy Trust

Ongoing

Currently, staff time and materials to support these

groups are part of the City’s resource commitments.

The Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust also has a

contractual agreement with the City for Volunteer

Management Services. These groups consist of

volunteers appointed by the Mayor.

4.7 Mountains to Sound

Greenway Trust

4.8 Forest Stewardship and

Adopt‐A‐Park

Ongoing

Currently, staff time and materials to support these

groups are the only City resource commitments.

These groups consist of volunteers and are supported

by the City’s Parks and Recreation Department.

4.9 EarthCorps Ongoing

Currently, staff time and materials to support this

group is part of the City’s resource commitments.

EarthCorps also has a contractual agreement with the

City for Volunteer Management Services. These

groups consist of volunteers and are supported by the

City’s Parks and Recreation Department.

5.1 Unfunded WRIA 8

Projects

As funds and

opportunity

allow

The City Council passed a resolution in 2005

expressing its approval and support for the Lake

Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed Chinook

Salmon Conservation Plan. Projects will be funded by

the City, partnering agencies and non‐profit

organizations, and grants as projects and funding

opportunities arise.

5.2 Recommended Projects

‐ Public As funds and

opportunity

allow

Projects identified in this section would likely be

implemented either when grant funds are obtained,

when partnerships are formed between the City and

other agencies or non‐profit groups, or as may be

required by the critical areas regulations and the

Shoreline Master Program during project‐level reviews

by the City.

5.3 Recommended Projects

‐ Private

5.4 Public Education/

Outreach

As funds and

opportunity

allow

On‐going and future education efforts should be

coordinated with the City and partnering agencies,

including funding sources (grant funding, monetary

donations, volunteer hours)



24

City planning staff will track all land use and development activity, including

exemptions, within shoreline jurisdiction, and will incorporate actions and programs of

the Parks and Utilities departments as well. A report will be assembled that provides

basic project information, including location, permit type issued, project description,

impacts, mitigation (if any), and monitoring outcomes as appropriate. Examples of data

categories might include square feet of non‐native vegetation removed, square feet of

native vegetation planted or maintained, reductions in chemical usage to maintain turf,

linear feet of eroding bank stabilized through plantings, linear feet of shoreline armoring

removed, or number of fish passage barriers corrected. The report would also update

Tables 1 and 4 above, and outline implementation of various programs and restoration

actions (by the City or other groups) that relate to watershed health.

The staff report will be assembled to coincide with Comprehensive Plan updates and

will be used, in light of the goals and objectives of the Shoreline Master Program, to

determine whether implementation of the SMP is meeting the basic goal of no net loss of

ecological functions relative to the baseline condition established in the Shoreline

Analysis Report (The Watershed Company 2009). In the long term, the City should be

able to demonstrate a net improvement in the City of Mercer Island’s shoreline

environment.

Based on the results of this assessment, the City may make recommendations for

changes to the SMP

7 RESTORATION PRIORITIES The process of prioritizing actions that are geared toward restoration of Mercer Island’s

shoreline areas involves balancing ecological goals with a variety of site‐specific

constraints. Briefly restated, the City’s environmental protection and restoration goals

include 1) protecting watershed processes, 2) protecting fish and wildlife habitat, and 3)

contributing to chinook conservation efforts. Constraints that are specific to Mercer

Island include a highly developed residential shoreline along Lake Washington with

several large areas of public open space/access. While some areas may already offer

fairly good ecological functions (e.g. portions of Luther Burbank Park shoreline), they

tend to include some additional opportunities to further enhance ecological functions.

These goals and constraints were used to develop a hierarchy of restoration actions to

rank different types of projects or programs associated with shoreline restoration.

Programmatic actions, like continuing WRIA 8 involvement and conducting outreach

programs to local residents, tend to receive relatively high priority opposed to

restoration actions involving private landowners. Other factors that influenced the

hierarchy are based on scientific recommendations specific to WRIA 8, potential funding

sources, and the projected level of public benefit. Restoration projects on public

property, such as those identified in Section 5.2, have received a high priority ranking



25

due to their availability to be funded by a variety of sources, such as CIP program, Parks

Department, local grants, and non‐profit groups.

Although restoration project/program scheduling is summarized in the previous section

(Table 2), the actual order of implementation may not always correspond with the

priority level assigned to that project/program. This discrepancy is caused by a variety

of obstacles that interfere with efforts to implement projects in the exact order of their

perceived priority. Some projects, such as those associated with riparian planting, are

relatively inexpensive and easy to permit and should be implemented over the short and

intermediate term despite the perception of lower priority than projects involving

extensive shoreline restoration or large‐scale capital improvement projects.

Straightforward projects with available funding should be initiated immediately for the

worthwhile benefits they provide and to preserve a sense of momentum while

permitting, design, site access authorization, and funding for the larger, more

complicated, and more expensive projects are under way.

7.1 Priority 1 – Continue Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 8 Participation

Of basic importance is the continuation of ongoing, programmatic, basin‐wide programs

and initiatives such as the WRIA 8 Forum. Continue to work collaboratively with other

jurisdictions and stakeholders in WRIA 8 to implement the Final Lake


Plan. This process provides an opportunity for the City to keep in touch with its role on

a basin‐wide scale and to influence habitat conditions beyond its borders, which, in turn,

come back to influence water quality and quantity and habitat issues within the City.

7.2 Priority 2 – Public Education and Involvement Public education and involvement has a high priority in the City of Mercer Island due to

the predominance of residential development along the shoreline. Recent outreach

efforts by other jurisdictions, such as the handbook Green Shorelines: Bulkhead

Alternatives for a Healthier Lake Washington (City of Seattle 2008), have begun to

change the perception of shoreline aesthetics, use, and ecological health. This and other

outreach efforts (i.e. workshops, websites, example projects) are clear motivating and

contributing factors for restoration activities on private property.

While many opportunities for shoreline restoration exist within City parks (see Section

5.2), multiple other opportunities also exist along community‐owned properties and

private marinas. Whether the focus is on single‐family residential, community‐owned,

or marina properties, providing education opportunities and involving the public is key

to success, and would possibly entail coordinating the development of a long‐term

Public Education and Outreach Plan (Section 5.2). This could also include focusing on

gaining public support for restoration along City parks.



26

Specific projects from the Action Start List include developing a workshop series and

website that is tailored to lakeshore property owners, and that promotes natural yard

care, alternatives to vertical bulkheads, fish‐friendly dock design, best management

practices for aquatic weed control, porous paving, and environmentally friendly

methods of maintaining boats, docks, and decks. Collaborative efforts with other

jurisdictions (i.e City of Seattle) could be completed to meet the Action Start List goals.

Additionally, design competitions and media coverage could be used to promote the use

of “rain gardens” and other low impact development practices that mimic natural

hydrology. A home/garden tour or “Street of Dreams” type event might serve to

showcase these landscape/engineering treatments.

7.3 Priority 3 – Reduce Shoreline Armoring along Lake Washington, Create or Enhance Natural Shoreline Conditions

The preponderance of shoreline armoring and its association with impaired habitat

conditions, specifically for juvenile chinook salmon, has been identified as one of the key

limiting factors along Lake Washington (Kerwin 2001). Nearly 78 percent of the

shoreline within the City of Mercer Island is armored at or below the ordinary high

water mark (The Watershed Company 2009). While there are no specifically identified

projects in the Final Lake Washington/ Cedar/ Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8)

Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan that are located within Mercer Island, there are

many opportunities listed in this Restoration Plan which focus on the potential

reduction in shoreline armoring and subsequent restoration and enhancement of

shoreline ecological functions.

However, emphasis should also be given to future project proposals that involve or have

the potential to restore privately‐owned shoreline areas to more natural conditions. The

City should explore ways in which to assist local property owners, whether through

financial assistance, permit expedition, or guidance, to team together with restoration of

multiple contiguous lots.

Recommendations from the Action Start List reflect this focus and encourage salmon

friendly shoreline design during new construction or redevelopment by offering

incentives and regulatory flexibility to improve bulkhead and dock design and

revegetate shorelines. Other recommendations from the List that support this priority

include: 1) increasing enforcement that addresses nonconforming structures over the

long run by requiring that major redevelopment projects meet current standards; 2)

discouraging construction of new bulkheads and offer incentives (e.g., provide expertise,

expedite permitting) for voluntary removal of bulkheads, beach improvement, riparian

revegetation; 3) utilizing interpretive signage where possible to explain restoration

efforts.



27

7.4 Priority 4 – Reduction of In-water and Over-water Structures

Similar to Priority 3 listed above, in‐water and over‐water structures, particularly piers,

docks, and covered moorages, have been identified as one of the key limiting factors in

Lake Washington (Kerwin 2001). Pier density along the City’s shoreline is 48 piers per

mile – slightly higher than the lake‐wide average of 36 piers per mile (Toft 2001), but in‐

line with other jurisdictions around Lake Washington. The density of residential

development along the City’s lakeshore is the main reason for the slightly higher‐than‐

average pier density. While the pier density along residential shorelines is much higher

than what is typically found along City‐owned park property, the overall footprint of

each public pier is generally much greater than is found along single‐family residential

sites. Opportunities exist for reduction in pier size and overall shading impacts through

pier modifications on public sites.

Although no specific privately‐owned project sites to reduce in‐water and over‐water

structures within residential areas are identified here, future project proposals involving

reductions in the size and/or quantity of such structures should be emphasized. Such

future projects may involve joint‐use pier proposals or pier reconstruction and may be

allowed an expedited permit process.

Action Start List Recommendations in support of Priority 4 include: 1) supporting the

joint effort by NOAA Fisheries and other agencies to develop dock/pier specifications

that streamline federal/state/local permitting; 2) promoting the value of light‐permeable

docks, smaller piling sizes, and community docks to both salmon and landowners

through direct mailings to lakeshore landowners or registered boat owners sent with

property tax notice or boat registration tab renewal; and 3) offering financial incentives

for community docks in terms of reduced permit fees, loan fees/percentage rates, taxes,

and permitting time, in addition to construction cost savings. Similarly, the WRIA 8

Salmon Conservation Plan identified a future project (C302) to explore opportunities to

reduce the number of docks by working with private property owners.

7.5 Priority 5 – Restore Mouths of Tributary Streams, Reduce Sediment and Pollutant Delivery to Lake Washington

Although most of the watercourses and their basins located within the City are outside

of shoreline jurisdiction, their impacts to shoreline areas should not be discounted.

Several of these streams have the potential to provide fish and wildlife habitat. For

juvenile chinook, once they enter Lake Washington, they often congregate near the

mouths of tributary streams, and prefer low gradient, shallow‐water habitats with small

substrates (Tabor and Piaskowski 2002; Tabor et al. 2004; Tabor et al. 2006). Chinook fry

entering Lake Washington early in the emigration period (February and March) are still

relatively small, typically do not disperse far from the mouth of their natal stream, and

are largely dependent upon shallow‐water habitats in the littoral zone with overhanging



28

vegetation and complex cover (Tabor and Piaskowski 2002; Tabor et al 2004). The

mouths of creeks entering Lake Washington (whether they support salmon spawning or

not), as well as undeveloped lakeshore riparian habitats associated with these

confluence areas, attract juvenile chinook salmon and provide important rearing habitat

during this critical life stage (Tabor et al. 2004; Tabor et al. 2006).

Later in the emigration period (May and June), most chinook juveniles have grown to

fingerling size and begin utilizing limnetic areas of the Lake more heavily (Koehler et al.

2006). As the juvenile chinook salmon mature to fingerlings and move offshore, their

distribution extends throughout Lake Washington. Although early emigrating chinook

fry from the Cedar River and North Lake Washington tributaries (primary production

areas) initially do not disperse around all of Mercer Island, some salmon fry from the

Cedar River are known to depend on nearshore habitats along the southern shore of

Mercer Island. Later in the spring (May and June), however, juvenile chinook are

known to be well distributed throughout both limnetic and littoral areas of Lake

Washington, and certainly utilize the shoreline habitats along Mercer Island.

Action Start List Recommendations in support of Priority 5 include: 1) addressing water

quality and high flow impacts from creeks and shoreline development through NPDES

Phase 1 and Phase 2 permit updates, consistent with Washington Department of

Ecology’s 2001 Stormwater Management Manual, including low impact development

techniques, on‐site stormwater detention for new and redeveloped projects, and control

of point sources that discharge directly into the lakes; and 2) Protecting and restoring

water quality and other ecological functions in tributaries to reduce effects of

urbanization. This involves protecting and restoring forest cover, riparian buffers,

wetlands, and creek mouths by revising and enforcing critical areas ordinances and

Shoreline Master Programs, incentives, and flexible development tools.

7.6 Priority 6 –Improve Water Quality and Reduce Sediment and Pollutant Delivery

Although most of the City’s watercourses and their basins are located outside of

shoreline jurisdiction, their impacts to shoreline areas should not be discounted. Several

of these watercourses have the potential to provide fish habitat in their lower sections

and wildlife habitat throughout. They are also a common receiving body for non‐point

source pollution, which in turn delivers those contaminants ultimately to Lake

Washington. Mercer Island started a Water Quality Monitoring effort in 2001 with

technical assistance from the King County Water and Land Resources Division that

analyzes a variety of water quality factors affecting Lake Washington.

Many actions provided in the WRIA 8 Salmon Conservation Plan focus on addressing

water quality and stormwater controls, including:

• Implement Phase 2 NPDES permit requirements



29

• Address stormwater impacts from transportation projects involving new or

expanded roadways

• Encourage low impact development through regulations, incentives,

education and training, and demonstration projects

• Improve Enforcement of Existing Land Use and Other Regulations

These recommendations emphasize the use of low impact development techniques, on‐

site stormwater detention for new and redeveloped projects, and control of point

sources that discharge directly into surface waters. They involve protecting and

restoring vegetative cover, riparian buffers, wetlands, and creek mouths by revising and

enforcing critical areas ordinances and Shoreline Master Programs, incentives, and

flexible development tools.

7.7 Priority 7 – Improve Riparian Vegetation, Reduce Impervious Coverage

Similar to the priority listed above to improve water quality and reduce sediment and

pollutant delivery, improved riparian vegetation and reduction in impervious surfaces

are emphasized throughout the WRIA 8 Salmon Conservation Plan. These factors

correspond directly to the emphasis to increase use of Low Impact Development

techniques. Actions which involve improvements to riparian vegetation and reductions

in impervious surface coverage are likely to take place on both public and private

development. The City’s Parks and Recreation Department is committed to providing

improved shoreline landscapes by incorporating areas of native riparian vegetation.

Private development should be encouraged to utilize low impact development

techniques such as the planting of native trees and use of porous paving.

7.8 Priority 8 – Reduce Aquatic Non-Native Invasive Weeds While not specifically listed in the WRIA 8 Salmon Conservation Plan, reduction of

aquatic invasive weeds from Lake Washington, particularly Eurasian watermilfoil and

white water lily, is of particular concern across many jurisdictions with Lake

Washington shoreline. Not only are aquatic weeds a problem for boats and swimmers,

but they also tend to reduce dissolved oxygen to lethal levels for fish, hampering

foraging opportunities. Long‐term control of aquatic non‐native invasive plants in Lake

Washington will be very difficult to achieve without coordinated inter‐jurisdictional

collaboration.

7.9 Priority 9 – Acquisition of Shoreline Property for Preservation, Restoration, or Enhancement Purposes

The City should explore opportunities to protect natural areas or other areas with high

ecological value or restoration potential via property acquisition. Mechanisms to

purchase property would likely include collaboration with other stakeholder groups



30

including representatives from local government, businesses and the general public in

order to develop a prioritized list of actions. Properties throughout the more developed

shoreline areas within the City may be available for acquisition both for preservation but

also to act as a showcase for restoration potential.

7.10 Priority 10 – City Zoning, Regulatory, and Planning Policies

City Zoning, Regulatory, and Planning Policies are listed as being of lower priority in

this case simply because they have been the subject of a thorough review and have

recently been updated accordingly. Notably, the City’s Critical Areas Ordinance was

updated (November 2005) consistent with the Best Available Science for critical areas,

including those within the shoreline area. However, as noted in the WRIA

Implementation Monitoring Report (WRIA 8 2008a), both Shoreline Master Programs

and Critical Areas Ordinances are highly linked to the implementation of plan

recommendations. For the time being, it is considered more important to capitalize on

this Restoration Plan by focusing on implementing projects consistent with the updated

SMP policies. Unimplemented or unused policies, by themselves, will not improve

habitat. As time goes by, further review and potential updating of these policies may

increase in priority. Policy‐related items in this category as listed in previous sections

include Comprehensive Plan Policies (Section 4.2), Critical Areas Regulations (Section

4.3), and Stormwater Planning (Section 4.4).

The City received its final NPDES Phase II permit in February 2007 from Ecology. The

NPDES Phase II permit is required to cover the City’s stormwater discharges into

regulated lakes and streams. Under the conditions of the permit, the City must protect

and improve water quality through public education and outreach, detection and

elimination of illicit non‐stormwater discharges (e.g., spills, illegal dumping,

wastewater), management and regulation of construction site runoff, management and

regulation of runoff from new development and redevelopment, and pollution

prevention and maintenance for municipal operations.

The City conducts all of the above at some level already, but significant additional effort

may be needed to document activities and to alter or upgrade programs. The City has

various programs to control stormwater pollution through maintenance of public

facilities, inspection of private facilities, water quality treatment requirements for new

development, source control work with businesses and residents, and spill control and

response. Monitoring may be required as part of an illicit discharge detection and

elimination program, for certain construction sites, or in waterbodies with a Total

Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Plan for particular pollutants. General water quality

monitoring concerns include: a) stormwater quality; b) effectiveness of best management

practices; and c) effectiveness of the stormwater management program.



31



32

8 REFERENCES Anchor Environmental LLC. 2005. Draft Shoreline Habitat Inventory Memorandum

City of Mercer Island. 2007. City of Mercer Island Capital Improvement Program.

City of Mercer Island. 2005. City of Mercer Island Comprehensive Plan.

City of Mercer Island. 2004. City of Mercer Island Open Space Vegetation Plan.

http://www.mercergov.org/files/osvegplanfinal.pdf

City of Mercer Island. 2008. Forest Stewardship Program and Adopt‐a‐Park.

http://www.ci.mercer‐island.wa.us/Page.asp?NavID=1515

City of Mercer Island. 2008. Mountains to Sound Invasive Plant Removal.

http://www.miparks.org/

City of Mercer Island. 2008. Open Space Conservancy Trust. City website.

http://www.ci.mercer‐island.wa.us/ccbindex.asp?ccbid=12

City of Seattle. 2008. Green Shorelines: Bulkhead Alternatives for a Healthier Lake

Washington. City of Seattle, Department of Planning and Development. 35pp.

EarthCorps. 2008. Volunteer activity information for City of Mercer Island.

http://www.earthcorps.org/volunteer.php

Kerwin, J. 2001. Salmon and steelhead habitat limiting factors report for the Cedar‐

Sammamish Basin (Water Resource Inventory Area 8). Washington Conservation

Commission. Olympia, WA.

Koehler, M.E., K.L. Fresh, D.A. Beauchamp, J.R. Cordell, C.A. Simenstad, and D.E.

Seiler. 2006. Diet and bioenergetics of Lake‐rearing juvenile chinook salmon in Lake

Washington. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 135:1580‐1591.

Tabor, R.A. and R.M. Piaskowski. 2002. Nearshore habitat use by juvenile chinook

salmon in lentic systems of the Lake Washington Basin, Annual Report, 2001. U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacey, WA.

Tabor, R.A., H.A. Gearns, C.M. McCoy III, and S. Camacho. 2006. Nearshore habitat use

by juvenile chinook salmon in lentic systems of the Lake Washington Basin, Annual

Report, 2003 and 2004. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacey, WA.



33

Tabor, R.A., J.A. Schuerer, H.A. Gearns, and E.P. Bixler. 2004. Nearshore habitat use by

juvenile chinook salmon in lentic systems of the Lake Washington basin, annual

report, 2002. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Fish and Wildlife

Office, Lacey, Washington.

The Watershed Company. 2009. Final Shoreline Analysis Report Including Shoreline

Inventory and Characterization for the City of Mercer Island’s Lake Washington

Shoreline. Prepared for City of Mercer Island.

Toft, J.D. 2001. Shoreline and dock modifications in Lake Washington. Prepared for

King County Department of Natural Resources. October 2001. SAFS‐UW‐0106

Washington Department of Ecology. 2007. Washington State Toxics Monitoring

Program: Contaminants in Fish Tissue from Freshwater Environments in 2004 and

2005. Publication No. 07‐03‐024. June 2007.

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0703024.pdf

WRIA 8 Steering Committee. 2002. Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed

(WRIA) Near‐Term Action Agenda For Salmon Habitat Conservation. August, 2002.

http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wrias/8/near‐term‐action‐agenda.htm.

WRIA 8 Steering Committee. 2005. Final Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish

Watershed (WRIA 8) Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan. July 2005.

WRIA 8. 2008a. Salmon and People Living Together: Lake

Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan,

Implementation Progress Report 2006‐2007. May 2008.

WRIA 8. 2008b. Enhancing Implementation of Programmatic Actions to Protect and

Restore habitat in the Lake Washington, Cedar, Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8).

Report to the Washington Department of Ecology under DOE grant #G‐700302.

Project Completion Report. May 15, 2008.



34

9 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AASF…………………Adopt‐A‐Stream Foundation

cfs…………………… cubic feet per second

CIP ............................... Capital Investment Program

GMA ............................ Growth Management Act

NGPA .......................... Native Growth Protection Area

NGPE ........................... Native Growth Protection Easement

OHWM ........................ ordinary high water mark

WDFW ......................... Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife


February 23, 2011

A P P E N D I X A

CITY OF MERCER ISLAND RESOLUTION 1347 RATIFYING THE WRIA 8 CHINOOK SALMON CONSERVATION PLAN


CITY OF MERCER ISLAND RESOLUTION NO. 1347

A RESOLUTION RATIFYING THE WATER RESOURCE INVENTORY AREA (WRTA) 8 CHINOOK SALMON CONSERVATION PLAN

WHEREAS, in March 1999, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries listed the Puget Sound Chinook salmon evolutionary significant unit as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA); and

WHEREAS, in November 1999, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) listed the Puget Sound bull trout distinct population segment as a threatened species under the ESA; and

WHEREAS, under the ESA, it is illegal to take a listed species, and the ESA defines the term "take" to include actions that could harm listed species or their habitat; and

WHEREAS, under the ESA, Section 4(f), NOAA Fisheries (for Chinook salmon) and USFWS (for bull trout) are required to develop and implement recovery plans to address the recovery of the species; and

WHEREAS, an essential ingredient for the development and implementation of an effective recovery program is coordination and cooperation among federal, state, and local agencies, tribes, businesses, researchers, non-governmental organizations, landowners, citizens, and other stakeholders as required; and

WHEREAS, Shared Strategy for Puget Sound, a regional non-profit organization, has assumed a lead role in the Puget Sound response to developing a recovery pIan for submittal to NOAA Fisheries and the USFWS; and

WHEREAS, local jurisdictions have authority over some habitat-based aspects of Chinook survival through land use and other policies and programs; and the state and tribes, who are the legal co-managers of the fishery resource, are responsible for addressing harvest and hatchery management in WRIA 8; and

WHEREAS, in WRIA 8, habitat actions to significantly increase Chinook productivity trends will be helpful, in conjunction with other recovery efforts, to avoid extinction in the near term and restore WRIA 8 Chinook to viability in the long term; and

WHEREAS, Mercer Island supports cooperation at the WRIA level to set common priorities for actions among partners, efficient use of resources and investments, and distribution of responsibility for actions and expenditures;

WHEREAS, 27 local governments in WRIA 8 jointly funded development of The WRlA 8 Steering Committee Proposed Lake Wushington/Cedar/Sammarn ish Watershed Chinook

Resolution No. 1347 I


Salmon Conservation Plan (the Plan), published February 25, 2005 following public input and review; and

WHEREAS, while the Plan recognizes that salmon recovery is a long-term effort, it focuses on the next 10 years and includes a scientific framework, a start-list of priority actions and comprehensive action lists, an adaptive management approach, and a funding strategy; and

WHEREAS, Mercer Island has consistently implemented habitat restoration and protection projects, and addressed salmon habitat through its land use and public outreach policies and programs over the past five years; and

WHEREAS, it is important to provide jurisdictions, the private sector and the public with certainty and predictability regarding the course of salmon recovery actions that the region will be taking in the Lake WashingtonlCedarlSmamish Watershed, including the Puget Sound nearshore; and

WHEREAS, if insuficient action is taken at the local and regional level, it is possible that the federal government could list Puget Sound Chinook salmon as an endangered species, thereby decreasing local flexibility.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE lT RESOLVED BY THE MERCER ISLAND CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS:

Section A: The Mercer Island City Council hereby ratifies l%e WRU 8 Steering Committee Proposed Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan, dated February 25,2005, a copy of which is on file with the Mercer Island City Clerk (the Plan). Ratification is intended to convey the city's approval of the Plan.

Section B: Mercer Island recognizes that negotiation of commitments and assurances/conditions with appropriate federal and state agencies will be an iterative process. Full implementation of this Plan is dependent on the following:

1. NOAA Fisheries will adopt the Plan, as an operative element of its ESA Section 4(f) recovery plan for Puget Sound Chinook salmon.

2. NOAA Fisheries and USFWS will: a) take no direct enforcement actions against Mercer Island under the ESA for

implementation of actions recommended in or consistent with the Plan, b) endorse the Plan and its actions, and defend Mercer Island against legal challenges

by third parties, and c) reduce the regulatory burden for Mercer Island activities recommended in or

consistent with the Plan that require an ESA Section 7 consultation.

Resolution No. 1347 2


ATTEST:

Bryan ~ d m , Deputy Mayor

3. Federal and state governments will: a) provide funding and other monetary incentives to support Plan actions and

monitoring activities, b) streamline permitting for projects implemented primarily to restore sdmonid habitat

or where the actions are mitigation that M e r Plan implementation, c) offer programmatic permitting for local jurisdiction actions that are consistent with

the Plan, d) accept the science that is the foundation of the Plan and support the monitoring and

evaluation framework, e) incorporate actions and guidance fiom the Plan in future federal and state

transportation and infrastructure planning and improvement projects, and f) direct mitigation resources toward Plan priorities.

Section C: This resolution does not obligate the Mercer Island City Council to fiture appropriations beyond current authority set forth in its 2005-2006 biennial budget. All future appropriations are subject to review and approval by the then seated City Council.

ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERCER ISLAND, WASHINGTON AT ITS REGULAR MEETING ON THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2005.

Resolution No. 1347 3 Resolution No. 1440 - Attachment A Page 99

February 23, 2011

A P P E N D I X B

PROPOSED OUTREACH AND EDUCATION ACTIONS


Cha

pter

10:

Com

preh

ensi

ve A

ctio

n-Li

st fo

r C

edar

F

ebru

ary

25, 2

005

P

age

69

Dra

ft P

rop

ose

d O

utr

each

& E

du

cati

on

Act

ion

s fo

r th

e C

edar

Po

pu

lati

on

(T

ier

1 an

d 2

Su

bar

eas)

(b

y W

RIA

8 P

ub

lic O

utr

each

Co

mm

itte

e)

Pro

j #

Hab

itat

Co

nd

itio

n

Des

ired

Ou

tco

me

Tar

get

A

ud

ien

ce

Pro

po

sed

Act

ion

P

rio

rity

P

rove

n

Tra

ck R

eco

rd/

Mo

del

Lev

el o

f F

inan

cial

C

om

mit

. C7

01

Rip

aria

n ve

geta

tion

disp

lace

d by

law

n,

inva

sive

s, o

r ex

otic

s;

wat

er q

ualit

y co

mpr

omis

ed b

y ga

rden

che

mic

als,

m

etal

s, s

edim

ent.;

hi

gher

wat

er u

se a

t tim

es w

hen

flow

s lo

wes

t.

Pro

tect

& r

esto

re

ripar

ian

vege

tatio

n to

pr

ovid

e so

urce

s of

la

rge

woo

dy

debr

is/p

ools

/riff

les;

pr

otec

t& r

esto

re

wat

er q

ualit

y,

mai

ntai

n in

stre

am

flow

s

Sho

relin

e pr

oper

ty

owne

rs a

nd

gene

ral

publ

ic

Upd

ate

and

dist

ribut

e st

ream

side

livi

ng m

ater

ials

suc

h as

Str

eam

side

Sav

vy, S

alm

on F

riend

ly G

arde

ning

P

ract

ices

, or

Goi

ng N

ativ

e. D

istr

ibut

e to

all

shor

elin

e pr

oper

ty o

wne

rs a

nd m

ake

avai

labl

e at

City

Hal

l, lib

rarie

s, a

nd r

etai

l est

ablis

hmen

ts s

uch

as h

ome

&

gard

en c

ente

rs.

Hig

h O

ngoi

ng o

r ha

ve b

een

dist

ribut

ed in

pa

st.

Low

-M

ediu

m

C702

R

ipar

ian

vege

tatio

n di

spla

ced

by la

wn,

in

vasi

ves,

or

exot

ics;

w

ater

qua

lity

com

prom

ised

by

land

scap

e pr

actic

es;

high

er w

ater

use

at

times

whe

n flo

ws

low

est.

Pro

tect

& r

esto

re

ripar

ian

vege

tatio

n to

pr

ovid

e so

urce

s of

la

rge

woo

dy

debr

is/p

ools

; pr

otec

t& r

esto

re

wat

er q

ualit

y,

mai

ntai

n in

stre

am

flow

s

Sho

relin

e pr

oper

ty

owne

rs

Offe

r sh

orel

ine

prop

erty

ow

ners

a w

orks

hop

in

stre

amsi

de li

ving

. Inc

lude

tips

on

land

scap

e de

sign

/mai

nten

ance

app

ropr

iate

for

river

side

pro

pert

ies

and

shor

elin

e st

abili

zatio

n (a

ltern

ativ

es to

ver

tical

wal

l bu

lkhe

ad d

esig

n).

Fea

ture

des

igne

rs a

nd c

ontr

acto

rs

who

hav

e bo

th e

xper

ienc

e an

d re

cogn

ition

in s

alm

on

frie

ndly

des

ign.

Hig

h S

eattl

e P

ublic

U

tiliti

es a

nd

Sno

hom

ish

Cou

nty

S

trea

msi

de

Ste

war

dshi

p C

ours

es,

Issa

quah

’s

Cre

eksi

de

Livi

ng

wo

rksh

ops

Low

C703

S

mal

ler

parc

els

lost

to

dev

elop

men

t or

po

ssib

le h

abita

t de

grad

atio

n w

ithou

t fin

anci

al in

cent

ives

to

cons

erve

that

are

of

fere

d to

ow

ners

of

larg

er p

arce

ls

Pro

tect

goo

d sa

lmon

ha

bita

t tha

t cou

ld

prov

ide

sour

ce o

f sh

elte

r, p

ools

, riff

les,

fo

od

Sho

relin

e pr

oper

ty

owne

rs

Exp

and

use

tax

cred

it in

cent

ives

to e

ncou

rage

pr

otec

tion

of s

mal

ler

prop

ertie

s no

t cur

rent

ly e

ligib

le fo

r ex

istin

g pr

ogra

ms.

Hig

h P

ublic

Ben

efits

R

atin

g S

yste

m,

Ope

n S

pace

C

urre

nt U

se

Tax

(C

UT

)

Var

iabl

e (L

ow

budg

et

C704

C

hann

el c

onfin

emen

t fr

om b

ulkh

eads

, le

vees

, and

arm

orin

g;

loss

of r

ipar

ian

vege

tatio

n

Sof

ten

shor

elin

es,

rest

ore

flood

plai

n co

nnec

tivity

and

ch

anne

l com

plex

ity

Sho

relin

e pr

oper

ty

owne

rs

Red

uce

perm

it fe

es fo

r sh

orel

ine

stab

iliza

tion

if de

sign

is

sal

mon

frie

ndly

(em

ploy

ing

alte

rnat

ives

to d

ikes

, le

vees

, rev

etm

ents

, and

ver

tical

wal

l bul

khea

ds).

Als

o re

duce

per

mit

fees

(w

here

app

licab

le)

for

stre

amsi

de

rest

orat

ion

and

rem

oval

& r

epla

cem

ent o

f non

-nat

ive

vege

tatio

n.

Hig

h

Low


Cha

pter

10:

Com

preh

ensi

ve A

ctio

n-Li

st fo

r C

edar

F

ebru

ary

25, 2

005

P

age

70

Pro

j #

Hab

itat

Co

nd

itio

n

Des

ired

Ou

tco

me

Tar

get

A

ud

ien

ce

Pro

po

sed

Act

ion

P

rio

rity

P

rove

n

Tra

ck R

eco

rd/

Mo

del

Lev

el o

f F

inan

cial

C

om

mit

. C7

05

Rip

aria

n ve

geta

tion

disp

lace

d by

law

n,

inva

sive

s, o

r ex

otic

s;

wat

er q

ualit

y co

mpr

omis

ed b

y ga

rden

che

mic

als,

m

etal

s, s

edim

ent.

H

ighe

r w

ater

use

at

times

whe

n flo

ws

low

est.

Pro

tect

& r

esto

re

ripar

ian

vege

tatio

n;

prot

ect&

res

tore

w

ater

qua

lity,

m

aint

ain

inst

ream

flo

ws,

sta

biliz

e sl

opes

with

nat

ive

ripar

ian

vege

tatio

n.

Incr

ease

like

lihoo

d of

ac

hiev

ing

thes

e go

als

by b

ringi

ng o

n bo

ard

indu

stry

with

a

larg

e in

fluen

ce o

ver

the

land

scap

es

with

in w

ater

shed

.

Land

scap

e C

on

trac

tors

O

ffer

educ

atio

nal o

ppor

tuni

ties

to la

ndsc

ape

desi

gner

s/co

ntra

ctor

s on

rip

aria

n de

sign

/nat

ures

capi

ng,

loca

l pla

nt s

ourc

ing,

pro

per

inst

alla

tion

tech

niqu

es,

inva

sive

spe

cies

, effi

cien

t wat

erin

g te

chni

ques

and

use

of

com

post

to b

uild

hea

lthy

soils

, con

trol

ero

sion

and

re

duce

nee

d fo

r su

pple

men

tal i

rrig

atio

n. A

ugm

ent

trai

ning

to a

ccom

mod

ate

Eng

lish

as S

econ

d La

ngua

ge

part

icip

ants

.

Hig

h W

ashi

ngto

n A

ssoc

. of

Land

scap

e P

rofe

ssio

nals

(W

ALP

) tr

aini

ngs

Low

-

Med

ium

(in

dust

ry

supp

orte

d)

C706

R

educ

ed fo

rest

cov

er;

incr

ease

d im

perv

ious

ar

eas/

lack

of

infil

trat

ion/

grou

nd

wat

er r

echa

rge

Pro

tect

fore

st c

over

, re

duce

impe

rvio

us

surf

ace

area

, in

crea

se in

filtr

atio

n ba

ck in

to s

oil a

nd

grou

nd w

ater

re

char

ge, d

ecre

ase

wat

er u

se.

Des

ign

&

Bui

ldin

g P

rofe

ssio

n-al

s

Pro

vide

edu

catio

n to

arc

hite

cts,

land

scap

e ar

chite

cts,

en

gine

ers,

and

dev

elop

ers

on s

usta

inab

le

build

ing/

desi

gn p

ract

ices

. Wor

k w

ith p

rofe

ssio

nal

asso

ciat

ions

to h

ighl

ight

bui

ldin

g pr

actic

es th

at m

aint

ain

wat

ersh

ed h

ealth

. In

clud

e Lo

w Im

pact

Dev

elop

men

t, im

port

ance

of m

aint

aini

ng c

anop

y co

ver

and

limiti

ng

impe

rvio

us s

urfa

ces.

Hig

h C

ity o

f Sea

ttle

Bus

ines

s &

In

dust

ry

Ven

ture

, Kin

g C

ount

y G

reen

B

uild

ing,

LE

ED

S,

Con

stru

ctio

n W

orks

and

ot

her

Sol

id

Was

te D

ivis

ion

outr

each

pr

ogra

ms

Low

–

Med

ium

C707

R

educ

ed fo

rest

cov

er;

incr

ease

d im

perv

ious

ar

eas/

lack

of

infil

trat

ion/

grou

nd

wat

er r

echa

rge

Con

trol

sto

rmw

ater

ru

noff

to m

ore

clos

ely

mim

ic n

atur

al

hydr

olog

y, r

educ

e pa

ving

and

im

perv

ious

are

as,

incr

ease

infil

trat

ion,

pr

otec

t for

est c

over

Des

ign

&

Bui

ldin

g P

rofe

ssio

n-al

s

Use

rec

ogni

tion

as a

mea

ns to

enc

oura

ge m

ore

salm

on

sust

aina

ble

desi

gns

and

cons

truc

tion.

In

add

ition

to p

rofe

ssio

nal a

ssoc

iatio

n aw

ards

, exp

and

reco

gniti

on to

incl

ude

mer

it aw

ards

cel

ebra

ted

by

popu

lar

mag

azin

es r

ead

by a

bro

ader

sec

tor

of th

e ge

nera

l pub

lic.

Pro

mot

e th

roug

h de

sign

com

petit

ions

and

med

ia

cove

rage

the

use

of “

rain

gar

dens

” an

d ot

her

low

im

pact

dev

elop

men

t pra

ctic

es th

at m

imic

nat

ural

hy

drol

ogy.

Com

bine

a h

ome/

gard

en to

ur o

r “S

tree

t of

Dre

ams”

type

eve

nt fe

atur

ing

thes

e la

ndsc

ape

Hig

h A

IA, A

SLA

, S

unse

t M

agaz

ine,

and

S

eattl

e T

imes

H

ome

and

Gar

den

awar

ds, K

ing

Cou

nty

Env

iroS

tars


Cha

pter

10:

Com

preh

ensi

ve A

ctio

n-Li

st fo

r C

edar

F

ebru

ary

25, 2

005

P

age

71

Pro

j #

Hab

itat

Co

nd

itio

n

Des

ired

Ou

tco

me

Tar

get

A

ud

ien

ce

Pro

po

sed

Act

ion

P

rio

rity

P

rove

n

Tra

ck R

eco

rd/

Mo

del

Lev

el o

f F

inan

cial

C

om

mit

. /e

ngin

eerin

g tr

eatm

ents

C708

In

suffi

cien

t flo

w

Mai

ntai

n in

stre

am

flow

s H

igh-

end

wat

er

user

s,

gene

ral

publ

ic

Ext

end

avai

labi

lity

of w

ater

con

serv

atio

n in

cent

ive

prog

ram

s (s

uch

as r

ebat

es

for

effic

ient

toile

ts,

appl

ianc

es, f

ree

indo

or c

onse

rvat

ion

kits

, or

free

la

ndsc

ape

irrig

atio

n au

dits

) to

dec

reas

e ho

useh

old

and

com

mer

cial

wat

er c

onsu

mpt

ion.

Hig

h S

mar

t &

Hea

lthy

Land

scap

es,

Wat

er C

ents

Low

C709

W

ater

qua

lity

com

prom

ised

by

gard

en c

hem

ical

s,

met

als,

sed

imen

t.

Hig

her

wat

er u

se a

t tim

es w

hen

flow

s lo

wes

t.

Pro

tect

wat

er q

ualit

y fr

om d

egra

datio

n by

pe

stic

ides

and

soi

l er

osio

n, m

aint

ain

inst

ream

flow

s by

re

duci

ng w

ater

use

d fo

r irr

igat

ion,

in

crea

se o

rgan

ic

cont

ent i

n so

ils to

in

crea

se w

ater

ho

ldin

g ca

paci

ty

Gen

eral

pu

blic

T

arge

t Nat

ural

Yar

dcar

e N

eigh

borh

oods

Pro

gram

to

incl

ude

mor

e co

mm

uniti

es in

the

Ced

ar s

ub-b

asin

. E

xpan

d cu

rric

ula

to o

ffer

mor

e la

ndsc

apin

g gu

idel

ines

sp

ecifi

c to

sho

relin

e re

side

nces

.

Hig

h O

ngoi

ng

prog

ram

M

ediu

m -

H

igh

C710

W

ater

qua

lity

degr

aded

by

clea

ners

, oils

, grit

, an

d pa

int;

stre

am

flow

s re

duce

d by

ex

cess

ive

wat

er u

se

Pro

tect

and

res

tore

w

ater

qua

lity

and

mai

ntai

n flo

ws

Gen

eral

P

ublic

C

oord

inat

e w

ith lo

cal b

usin

ess

com

mun

ity to

en

cour

age

the

use

of c

omm

erci

al c

ar w

ashe

s. (

Wat

er

qual

ity a

nd s

alm

on c

onse

rvat

ion

coul

d pr

ovid

e a

new

m

arke

ting

angl

e; c

ar d

eale

rshi

ps c

ould

offe

r ca

r w

ash

coup

ons

as b

onus

with

car

pur

chas

e.).

Req

uire

that

car

ki

ts b

e us

ed fo

r al

l par

king

lot f

und

rais

er c

ar w

ashe

s,

or o

ffer

carw

ash

coup

ons

or a

s m

ore

eco-

frie

ndly

al

tern

ativ

e fu

ndin

g so

urce

.

Hig

h P

uget

Sou

nd

Car

Was

h A

ssoc

iatio

n C

oupo

n P

rogr

am.

Var

iabl

e -

Low

C711

A

ll co

nditi

ons

liste

d ab

ove

Wat

er q

ualit

y de

grad

ed b

y to

xics

an

d ga

rden

ch

emic

als;

cha

nnel

co

nfin

emen

t; lo

ss o

f rip

aria

n bu

ffer;

use

of

larg

e w

oody

deb

ris,

pool

s, r

iffle

s, r

educ

ed

chan

nel c

ompl

exity

; rip

aria

n ve

geta

tion

disp

lace

d by

law

n;

high

wat

er u

se w

hen

flow

s lo

wes

t.

Incr

ease

pub

lic

wat

ersh

ed li

tera

cy

awar

enes

s of

effe

cts

on w

ater

qua

lity

and

habi

tat c

ondi

tions

.

Gen

eral

P

ublic

, but

in

pa

rtic

ular

, re

side

nts

of

Ced

ar s

ub-

basi

n w

ho

may

not

be

awar

e of

ex

iste

nce

of

salm

on

right

with

in

urba

n ar

ea

Sup

port

and

enc

oura

ge e

ffort

s of

Ced

ar R

iver

N

atur

alis

t Pro

gram

to p

rom

ote

volu

ntar

y st

ewar

dshi

p by

focu

sing

on

educ

atio

n, m

onito

ring,

and

mai

nten

ance

of

res

tora

tion

site

s (e

.g. C

avan

augh

Pon

d).

Con

tinue

and

exp

and

mes

sagi

ng a

bout

how

eve

ryda

y pe

rson

al a

ctio

ns a

ffect

sal

mon

, the

Ced

ar R

iver

, and

en

tire

wat

ersh

ed.

Hig

h O

ngoi

ng

prog

ram

with

su

cce

ssfu

l tr

ack

rec

ord

si

nce

l998

Low

-M

ediu

m


Cha

pter

10:

Com

preh

ensi

ve A

ctio

n-Li

st fo

r C

edar

F

ebru

ary

25, 2

005

P

age

72

Pro

j #

Hab

itat

Co

nd

itio

n

Des

ired

Ou

tco

me

Tar

get

A

ud

ien

ce

Pro

po

sed

Act

ion

P

rio

rity

P

rove

n

Tra

ck R

eco

rd/

Mo

del

Lev

el o

f F

inan

cial

C

om

mit

. C7

12

Wat

er q

ualit

y de

grad

ed b

y to

xics

K

eep

toxi

cs o

ut o

f w

ater

by

prov

idin

g sa

fer

alte

rnat

ive

Gen

eral

P

ublic

In

crea

se o

utre

ach

abou

t ava

ilabi

lity

and

loca

tions

of

Haz

ardo

us W

aste

Col

lect

ion

site

s an

d sp

ecia

l co

llect

ion

even

ts.

Hig

h

Kin

g C

ount

y Lo

cal

Haz

ardo

us

Was

te

Man

agem

ent

Pro

gram

Low

(c

heap

er

than

de

alin

g w

ith il

lega

l du

mpi

ng)

C713

W

ater

qua

lity

degr

aded

by

toxi

cs,

pest

icid

es, m

etal

s,

incr

ease

d nu

trie

nt

load

s, s

edim

ents

, lo

ss o

f rip

aria

n bu

ffer

Pro

tect

and

res

tore

w

ater

qua

lity

Gen

eral

P

ublic

P

ublic

ize

emer

genc

y ca

ll nu

mbe

rs f

or p

ublic

to

repo

rt w

ater

qua

lity

and

quan

tity

prob

lem

s, n

on-

perm

itted

veg

etat

ion

clea

ring

, non

-per

mitt

ed in

-st

ream

gra

ding

, and

woo

d re

mov

al in

cide

nts.

Hig

h S

eattl

e P

ublic

U

tiliti

es S

urfa

ce

Wat

er P

ollu

tion

Pre

vent

ion

Hot

line

and

web

site

Low

C714

R

ipar

ian

vege

tatio

n di

spla

ced

by la

wn,

in

vasi

ves,

and

ex

otic

s, p

rovi

ding

littl

e fo

od v

alue

, no

sour

ce

of L

WD

, or

soil

stab

ility

(s

edim

enta

tion

of

grav

el b

eds)

. In

crea

sed

wat

er u

se

whe

n flo

ws

low

est;

incr

ease

d us

e of

pe

stic

ides

on

less

re

sist

ant e

xotic

s

Res

tore

nat

ive

ripar

ian

vege

tatio

n to

pr

ovid

e co

ver

and

terr

estr

ial f

ood

sour

ce, r

educ

e so

il er

osio

n an

d se

dim

enta

tion

in

grav

el b

eds,

pro

tect

an

d re

stor

e w

ater

qu

ality

, mai

ntai

n in

stre

am fl

ows

Sho

relin

e P

rope

rty

Ow

ners

an

d C

omm

unity

Incr

ease

num

ber

of n

ativ

e pl

ant s

alva

ges.

Inte

grat

e th

ese

salv

age

oppo

rtun

ities

into

nat

ursc

apin

g cl

asse

s;

clas

s pa

rtic

ipan

ts c

an ta

ke h

ome

nativ

e pl

ants

for

imm

edia

te u

se b

oth

with

in a

nd s

urro

undi

ng s

ensi

tive

area

s.

Hig

h K

ing

and

Sno

hom

ish

Cou

nty

Nat

ive

Pla

nt S

alva

ge

Pro

gram

s,

WS

U

Coo

pera

tive

Ext

ensi

on

Nat

ive

Pla

nt

Sal

vage

Pro

ject

pa

rtne

rshi

p w

ith P

uget

S

ound

Act

ion

Tea

m,

Thr

usto

n &

M

ason

C

ount

ies.

Low

C715

C

hann

el c

onfin

emen

t an

d lo

ss o

f cha

nnel

co

mpl

exity

from

bu

lkhe

ads,

leve

es,

and

arm

orin

g; lo

ss o

f rip

aria

n ve

geta

tion

Red

uce

chan

nel

conf

inem

ent,

rest

ore

ripar

ian

vege

tatio

n,

and

flood

plai

n co

nnec

tivity

and

ch

anne

l com

plex

ity

Sho

relin

e pr

oper

ty

owne

rs,

gene

ral

Pub

lic

Dem

onst

ratio

n P

roje

ct. L

ocat

e pr

oper

ty o

wne

r in

pu

blic

ly a

cces

sibl

e (o

r vi

ewab

le)

area

will

ing

to r

emov

e bu

lkhe

ad, l

evee

, or

stre

am b

ank

arm

orin

g an

d re

plac

e it

with

mor

e ec

olog

ical

ly fr

iend

ly d

esig

n. P

ublic

ize

effo

rts

thro

ugh

vario

us m

eans

. Dem

onst

ratio

n pr

ojec

t sh

ould

con

tain

ele

men

ts th

at c

an b

e do

ne b

y av

erag

e sh

orel

ine

prop

erty

ow

ner.

Pro

vide

info

rmat

ion

on c

osts

an

d ad

vant

ages

of a

ltern

ate

trea

tmen

ts.

Hig

h –

Med

ium

-

Var

iabl

e

C716

La

ck o

f lar

ge w

oody

de

bris

O

verc

ome

publ

ic fe

ar

and

resi

stan

ce to

pr

ovid

ing

and

Sho

relin

e pr

oper

ty

owne

rs,

Incr

ease

pub

lic a

war

enes

s ab

out t

he v

alue

of l

arge

w

oody

deb

ris a

nd n

ativ

e ve

geta

tion

for

flood

pro

tect

ion,

sa

lmon

hab

itat,

and

heal

thy

stre

ams.

Con

vey

thro

ugh

Hig

h-M

ediu

m

Exi

stin

g K

ing

Cou

nty

and

U

S F

ores

t

Low


Cha

pter

10:

Com

preh

ensi

ve A

ctio

n-Li

st fo

r C

edar

F

ebru

ary

25, 2

005

P

age

73

Pro

j #

Hab

itat

Co

nd

itio

n

Des

ired

Ou

tco

me

Tar

get

A

ud

ien

ce

Pro

po

sed

Act

ion

P

rio

rity

P

rove

n

Tra

ck R

eco

rd/

Mo

del

Lev

el o

f F

inan

cial

C

om

mit

. m

aint

aini

ng w

oody

de

bris

alo

ng

shor

elin

es a

nd

subs

eque

nt s

ourc

e of

cov

er, p

ools

, riff

les

gene

ral

publ

ic

med

ia (

loca

l new

spap

ers,

com

mun

ity n

ewsl

ette

rs);

si

gnag

e al

ong

publ

icly

acc

essi

ble

“mod

el”

shor

elin

e;

and

bro

chur

es s

uch

as K

ing

Cou

nty’

s La

rge

Woo

dy

Deb

ris a

nd R

iver

Saf

ety

and

US

For

est S

ervi

ce L

arge

W

oody

Mat

eria

l: T

he B

ackb

one

of a

Str

eam

. D

istr

ibut

e to

all

shor

elin

e pr

oper

ty o

wne

rs a

nd to

mor

e of

gen

eral

pu

blic

, esp

ecia

lly r

ecre

atio

nal b

oate

rs.

Bro

chur

es o

n LW

D a

nd b

oate

r sa

fety

cou

ld b

e m

ade

avai

labl

e at

app

ropr

iate

loca

tions

suc

h as

: th

e R

ento

n C

omm

unity

Cen

ter

(whe

re s

ome

tube

rs p

ut in

or

pull

out)

, the

Hen

ry M

oses

Poo

l and

Wat

er P

ark,

the

Ren

ton

Pub

lic L

ibra

ry (

also

on

the

river

), a

nd r

etai

l lo

catio

ns w

here

inne

r-tu

bes,

can

oes,

and

kay

aks

are

sold

or

rent

ed.

Whe

re th

ere

is r

ight

-of-

way

or

perm

issi

on fr

om

priv

ate

owne

rs, c

onsi

der

inst

allin

g ki

d-fr

iend

ly

sign

age

whi

ch a

ddre

sses

the

pot

entia

l dan

gers

th

at L

WD

can

pos

e to

boa

ters

– a

long

with

the

va

lue

it pr

ovid

es t

o sa

lmon

and

the

hea

lth o

f th

e riv

er..

Whe

re p

ossi

ble,

loca

te s

igns

at

popu

lar

“put

-in”

and

“ ta

ke-o

ut”

spot

s al

ong

the

river

.

Ser

vice

br

ochu

res

C717

A

ll co

nditi

ons

liste

d ab

ove.

R

educ

e ch

anne

l co

nfin

emen

t, re

stor

e rip

aria

n ve

geta

tion,

an

d flo

odpl

ain

conn

ectiv

ity a

nd

chan

nel c

ompl

exity

Sho

relin

e pr

oper

ty

owne

rs

Exp

lore

pos

sibi

lity

of a

ddin

g a

disc

losu

re to

Rea

l Est

ate

Sal

es A

gree

men

t des

crib

ing

shor

elin

es a

s se

nsiti

ve

area

s, s

ubje

ct to

rul

es a

nd r

egul

atio

ns o

f City

and

C

ount

y. L

ook

to m

odel

set

by

Kin

g C

ount

y.

Hig

h –

Med

ium

K

ing

Cou

nty

Dep

t. of

D

evel

opm

ent

and

Env

ironm

enta

l S

ervi

ces

Med

ium

C718

W

ater

qua

lity

com

prom

ised

by

toxi

cs, p

estic

ides

, m

etal

fine

s, a

nd

nutr

ient

ove

rload

s

Pro

tect

and

res

tore

w

ater

qua

lity.

G

ener

al

Pub

lic

Wor

k w

ith a

uto

part

s re

taile

rs a

nd g

as s

tatio

ns to

in

crea

se p

oten

tial f

or c

olle

ctio

n of

use

d m

otor

oi

l/tra

nsm

issi

on fl

uids

. D

istr

ibut

e W

ater

Qua

lity

post

er s

erie

s w

hich

dep

icts

im

pact

s of

eve

ryda

y pr

actic

es: w

ashi

ng c

ar, d

rivi

ng c

ar

with

out m

aint

enan

ce, l

eavi

ng p

et w

aste

s un

atte

nded

, an

d im

prop

erly

usi

ng la

wn

chem

ical

s. P

rom

ote

Hig

h-M

ediu

m

Yes

, Kin

g C

ount

y Lo

cal

Haz

ardo

us

Was

te

Man

agem

ent

Env

iroS

tars

pr

ogra

m

Med

ium


Cha

pter

10:

Com

preh

ensi

ve A

ctio

n-Li

st fo

r C

edar

F

ebru

ary

25, 2

005

P

age

74

Pro

j #

Hab

itat

Co

nd

itio

n

Des

ired

Ou

tco

me

Tar

get

A

ud

ien

ce

Pro

po

sed

Act

ion

P

rio

rity

P

rove

n

Tra

ck R

eco

rd/

Mo

del

Lev

el o

f F

inan

cial

C

om

mit

. st

orm

wat

er b

est m

anag

emen

t pra

ctic

es r

elat

ed to

pa

rkin

g lo

t cle

anin

g, s

torm

dra

in m

aint

enan

ce, a

nd

road

cle

anin

g. M

ake

prin

ted

mat

eria

l ava

ilabl

e in

oth

er

lang

uage

s.

Wat

er Q

ualit

y C

onso

rtiu

m,

Bus

ines

ses

for

Cle

an W

ater

C7

19

Cha

nnel

con

finem

ent

redu

ced

chan

nel

com

plex

ity, l

oss

of

ripar

ian

vege

tatio

n

Incr

ease

pub

lic

wat

ersh

ed li

tera

cy

awar

enes

s of

effe

cts

on w

ater

qua

lity

and

habi

tat c

ondi

tions

,

Com

mun

ity

Incr

ease

citi

zen

invo

lvem

ent i

n vo

lunt

ary

stew

ards

hip

prog

ram

s, fo

cusi

ng o

n re

stor

atio

n pr

ojec

ts to

mee

t the

ne

eds

of th

e co

nser

vatio

n pl

an th

roug

h re

stor

atio

n,

educ

atio

n, m

onito

ring

and

rest

orat

ion

site

mai

nten

ance

Hig

h –

Med

ium

V

ario

us: C

edar

R

iver

N

atur

alis

ts,

Sam

mam

ish

ReL

eaf,

Str

eam

T

eam

; Wat

er

Ten

ders

Med

ium

C720

W

ater

qua

lity

degr

aded

by

sedi

men

t, di

min

ishe

d gr

ound

wat

er

rech

arge

, fla

shin

ess

of fl

oods

and

re

sulta

nt b

ed s

cour

Pro

tect

and

res

tore

fo

rest

co

ver,

in

crea

se in

filtr

atio

n,

decr

ease

inte

nsity

of

flood

con

ditio

ns,

prot

ect w

ater

qua

lity

from

sed

imen

t

Gen

eral

pu

blic

In

crea

se o

utre

ach

effo

rts

abou

t the

ben

efits

of t

rees

an

d ba

sin-

wid

e fo

rest

cov

erag

e to

pro

tect

wat

er q

ualit

y.

Cla

rify

issu

es a

bout

haz

ard

tree

s. O

ffer

seed

lings

(p

erha

ps p

rovi

ded

by a

tim

ber

com

pany

) to

rep

lant

af

ter

pote

ntia

lly h

azar

dous

tree

s ar

e re

mov

ed.

Enl

ist

the

help

of n

urse

ries

/hom

e &

gar

den

cent

ers

on th

is

educ

atio

n ca

mpa

ign.

(P

oten

tial n

ew F

athe

rs’ D

ay g

ift

idea

: Buy

and

pla

nt a

tree

eac

h ye

ar fo

r a

dad

who

lo

ves

salm

on).

Hig

h in

ru

ral

area

s;

Med

ium

in

ur

ban/

sub

urba

n ar

eas.

Yes

, S

amm

amis

h R

eLea

f; M

ount

ains

-to-

Sou

nd

Gre

enw

ay; C

ity

tree

or

dina

nces

.

Var

iabl

e -

Med

ium

C721

A

ll co

nditi

ons

liste

d.

Pro

tect

fore

st c

over

, w

etla

nds,

he

adw

ater

s, c

ritic

al

salm

on h

abita

t; in

crea

se p

ublic

su

ppor

t for

land

ac

quis

ition

and

re

stor

atio

n pr

ojec

ts,

as w

ell a

s la

ndus

e po

licie

s.

Sho

relin

e pr

oper

ty

owne

rs,

gene

ral

publ

ic

Iden

tify

and

enco

urag

e sh

orel

ine

neig

hbor

hood

and

co

mm

unity

ste

war

dshi

p as

soci

atio

ns to

fost

er th

e et

hic

of v

olun

tary

ste

war

dshi

p. U

se th

ese

grou

ps to

bui

ld a

br

idge

bet

wee

n pr

oper

ty o

wne

rs, a

genc

ies,

and

loca

ls

gove

rnm

ents

. P

rom

ote

wat

ersh

ed h

ealth

thro

ugh

gras

sroo

ts m

essa

ging

. In

crea

sed

pote

ntia

l for

med

ia c

over

age

whe

n ef

fort

s in

itiat

ed a

t com

mun

ity le

vel.

Med

ium

F

riend

s of

Roc

k C

reek

Val

ley,

F

riend

s of

C

edar

Riv

er

Wat

ersh

ed,

Ced

ar R

iver

C

ounc

il, L

ake

For

est P

ark

Ste

war

dshi

p F

ound

atio

n,

Low

C722

Lo

ss o

f for

est c

over

, or

gani

c co

nten

t in

soils

, inc

reas

e in

im

perv

ious

are

as a

nd

incr

ease

d ru

n-of

f, de

grad

ed w

ater

qu

ality

flas

hine

ss

durin

g flo

od

cond

ition

s.

Pro

tect

fore

st c

over

, re

duce

impe

rvio

us

area

and

run

off,

incr

ease

infil

trat

ion,

pr

otec

t and

res

tore

w

ater

qua

lity,

m

aint

ain

inst

ream

flo

ws

Des

ign/

B

uild

In

dust

ry

Cre

ate

a ca

mpa

ign

that

trac

ks d

eman

d am

ong

com

mun

ity r

esid

ents

for

purc

hasi

ng g

reen

hom

es a

nd

rem

odel

ing

with

gre

en b

uild

ing

stra

tegi

es.

Med

ium

G

reen

Car

P

rogr

am

Low

C723

D

egra

ded

wat

er

Cul

tivat

e et

hic

of

You

th

Link

edu

catio

n an

d co

mm

unity

ser

vice

ste

war

dshi

p M

ediu

m

Env

ironm

enta

l Lo

w


Cha

pter

10:

Com

preh

ensi

ve A

ctio

n-Li

st fo

r C

edar

F

ebru

ary

25, 2

005

P

age

75

Pro

j #

Hab

itat

Co

nd

itio

n

Des

ired

Ou

tco

me

Tar

get

A

ud

ien

ce

Pro

po

sed

Act

ion

P

rio

rity

P

rove

n

Tra

ck R

eco

rd/

Mo

del

Lev

el o

f F

inan

cial

C

om

mit

. qu

ality

, ins

trea

m

flow

s, h

abita

t qua

lity

envi

ronm

enta

l st

ewar

dshi

p;

incr

ease

wat

ersh

ed

awar

enes

s an

d lin

ks

betw

een

man

mad

e ha

bita

t and

en

viro

nmen

tal

heal

th.

proj

ects

. E

xpan

d to

com

mun

ity o

utre

ach

to

com

mun

ity/te

chni

cal c

olle

ges

& u

nive

rsiti

es.

Por

tal S

eattl

e,

Mer

cer

Slo

ugh

Inte

rns,

N.

Sho

re U

tility

T

our,

Wat

er

Ten

ders

.

C724

R

ipar

ian

vege

tatio

n di

spla

ced

by la

wn,

in

vasi

ves,

or

exot

ics,

pr

ovid

ing

little

food

va

lue,

sou

rce

of la

rge

woo

dy d

ebris

, or

soil

stab

ility

. Wat

er q

ualit

y co

mpr

omis

ed b

y ga

rden

che

mic

als,

m

etal

s, s

edim

ent.

H

ighe

r w

ater

use

at

times

whe

n flo

ws

low

est.

Rep

lace

law

n an

d ot

her

low

er

ecol

ogic

al v

alue

pl

antin

gs w

ith

ripar

ian

buffe

rs a

nd

nativ

e pl

ants

Gen

eral

pu

blic

E

ncou

rage

nei

ghbo

rhoo

d ga

rden

tour

s of

sal

mon

fr

iend

ly g

arde

ns. H

elp

resi

dent

s vi

sual

ize

alte

rnat

ives

to

trad

ition

al (

and

ofte

n le

ss e

co-f

riend

ly)

land

scap

e tr

eatm

ents

. Offe

r ne

ighb

ors

assi

stan

ce w

ith p

ublic

ity,

sign

age,

and

vol

unte

er d

ocen

ts. C

oord

inat

e w

ith

neig

hbor

hood

gar

den

club

s.

Med

ium

E

xist

ing

neig

hbor

hood

ga

rden

tour

s.

Vol

unte

er

doce

nts

by

Kin

g C

ount

y M

aste

r R

ecyc

ler

Com

post

ers

and

WS

U

Mas

ter

Gar

dene

rs.

Low

C725

A

ll co

nditi

ons

disc

usse

d ab

ove.

In

crea

se a

war

enes

s ab

out e

ffect

s of

ha

bita

t on

salm

on

and

wat

ersh

ed

heal

th; i

ncre

ase

supp

ort f

or la

nd

acqu

isiti

on a

nd

rest

orat

ion

effo

rts

as

wel

l as

land

use

polic

ies;

insp

ire

shor

elin

e pr

oper

ty

owne

rs to

mak

e ch

ange

s on

thei

r ow

n pr

oper

ty.

Gen

eral

pu

blic

, but

in

par

ticul

ar

Sho

relin

e pr

oper

ty

owne

rs

Cre

ate

loca

l inf

orm

atio

nal T

V s

pots

that

cou

ld r

un o

n th

e go

vern

men

t cab

le c

hann

els.

Foc

us o

n th

ose

habi

tat

cond

ition

s th

reat

enin

g sa

lmon

that

are

affe

cted

by

our

daily

per

sona

l pra

ctic

es, l

ands

cape

des

ign

and

man

agem

ent p

ract

ices

. Sho

wca

se g

ood

desi

gns

to

prov

ide

mod

els

to e

mul

ate.

Med

ium

–

Low

S

alm

on

Info

rmat

ion

TV

, C

-TV

,

Var

iabl

e

C726

A

ll co

nditi

ons

disc

usse

d ab

ove.

E

ncou

rage

D

esig

n/B

uild

indu

stry

pr

ofes

sion

als

to o

ffer

mor

e sa

lmon

fr

iend

ly/e

co-f

riend

ly

Des

ign

&

Bui

ldin

g P

rofe

ssio

n-al

s

Use

rec

ogni

tion

as a

mea

ns to

enc

oura

ge m

ore

salm

on

sust

aina

ble

desi

gns

and

cons

truc

tion.

Coo

rdin

ate

with

pr

ofes

sion

al a

ssoc

iatio

n aw

ards

in a

dditi

on to

pop

ular

m

agaz

ine

mer

it aw

ards

. Con

tinue

to r

ecog

nize

bu

sine

sses

that

car

ry o

ut p

roce

dure

s or

use

pro

duct

s

Med

ium

–

Low

A

mer

ican

In

stitu

te o

f A

rchi

tect

s,

Am

eric

an

Soc

iety

of

Low


Cha

pter

10:

Com

preh

ensi

ve A

ctio

n-Li

st fo

r C

edar

F

ebru

ary

25, 2

005

P

age

76

Pro

j #

Hab

itat

Co

nd

itio

n

Des

ired

Ou

tco

me

Tar

get

A

ud

ien

ce

Pro

po

sed

Act

ion

P

rio

rity

P

rove

n

Tra

ck R

eco

rd/

Mo

del

Lev

el o

f F

inan

cial

C

om

mit

. de

sign

sol

utio

ns.

that

pro

tect

wat

ersh

ed h

ealth

.

Land

scap

e A

rchi

tect

s,

Sun

set

Mag

azin

e, a

nd

Sea

ttle

Tim

es

Hom

e an

d G

arde

n aw

ards

, Kin

g C

ount

y E

nviro

. S

tars

. C7

27

All

cond

ition

s di

scus

sed

abov

e In

crea

se w

ater

shed

lit

erac

y an

d un

ders

tand

ing

of

effe

cts

of h

abita

t on

salm

on

Bus

ines

s C

omm

unity

an

d G

ener

al

Pub

lic

Coo

rdin

ate

with

bus

ines

ses

alon

g C

edar

that

can

hel

p w

ith o

utre

ach

goal

s. F

or e

xam

ple,

Ivar

’s S

eafo

ods

coul

d pr

omot

e ke

y m

essa

ges

abou

t sal

mon

co

nser

vatio

n on

thei

r m

enus

or

thou

gh g

ame

card

s.

Thi

s se

afoo

d ch

ain

also

has

oth

er r

esta

uran

ts lo

cate

d w

ithin

WR

IA 8

so

it co

uld

be c

ost e

ffect

ive

for

them

to

do s

uch

a pr

omot

ion.

Med

ium

Y

es

Low

C728

W

ater

qua

lity

degr

aded

by

toxi

cs

and

met

al fi

nes.

Rei

nfor

ce to

stu

dent

s an

d th

e co

mm

unity

th

e re

latio

nshi

p be

twee

n w

hat g

oes

dow

n st

orm

dra

in

and

wat

ersh

ed

heal

th v

ia a

n af

ford

able

and

eas

ily

impl

emen

ted

prog

ram

.

Gen

eral

P

ublic

E

xpan

d st

orm

-dra

in s

tenc

iling

pro

gram

loca

lly a

nd

basi

n-w

ide.

Tra

ck lo

catio

ns a

nd d

ates

in a

Ced

ar B

asin

da

taba

se.

Med

ium

-

Low

Y

es

Low

C729

C

hann

el c

onfin

emen

t, lo

ss o

f rip

aria

n bu

ffer:

so

urce

s of

larg

e w

oody

deb

ris,

pool

s,

riffle

s; r

educ

ed

chan

nel c

ompl

exity

,

Insp

ire s

hore

line

prop

erty

ow

ners

to

mak

e ch

ange

s on

th

eir

own

prop

erty

by

prov

idin

g go

od

exam

ples

; inc

reas

e pu

blic

sup

port

for

land

acq

uisi

tion

and

rest

orat

ion

effo

rts

as

wel

l as

land

use

polic

ies.

Sho

relin

e pr

oper

ty

owne

rs a

nd

gene

ral

publ

ic

Use

gov

ernm

ent c

able

cha

nnel

s to

follo

w p

rogr

ess

of

the

site

spe

cific

res

tora

tion

proj

ects

. U

se o

f vid

eo to

do

cum

ent p

roje

cts

befo

re, d

urin

g, a

nd a

fter

rest

orat

ion.

D

istr

ibut

e re

sulti

ng p

rogr

ams

to li

brar

ies,

sch

ools

, and

co

mm

uniti

es g

roup

s.

Low

S

alm

on

Info

rmat

ion

TV

V

aria

ble

C730

A

ll co

nditi

ons

disc

usse

d ab

ove.

Im

prov

e w

ater

shed

aw

aren

ess

and

You

th

Foc

us e

nviro

nmen

tal/s

cien

ce c

urric

ula

on lo

cal

wat

ersh

ed is

sues

, with

par

ticul

ar e

mph

asis

on

key

Low

-F

utur

e Y

es

Med

ium


Cha

pter

10:

Com

preh

ensi

ve A

ctio

n-Li

st fo

r C

edar

F

ebru

ary

25, 2

005

P

age

77

Pro

j #

Hab

itat

Co

nd

itio

n

Des

ired

Ou

tco

me

Tar

get

A

ud

ien

ce

Pro

po

sed

Act

ion

P

rio

rity

P

rove

n

Tra

ck R

eco

rd/

Mo

del

Lev

el o

f F

inan

cial

C

om

mit

. po

ssib

ly p

reve

nt

futu

re h

abita

t de

grad

atio

n by

in

still

ing

a be

tter

unde

rsta

ndin

g of

in

terr

elat

ions

hip

betw

een

habi

tat,

daily

act

ions

, and

w

ater

shed

hea

lth.

fact

ors

limiti

ng th

e C

edar

Chi

nook

pop

ulat

ion.


Cha

pter

10:

Com

preh

ensi

ve A

ctio

n-Li

st fo

r C

edar

F

ebru

ary

25, 2

005

P

age

78

Dra

ft P

rop

ose

d O

utr

each

& E

du

cati

on

Act

ion

s fo

r L

ake

Was

hin

gto

n

(by

WR

IA 8

Pu

blic

Ou

trea

ch C

om

mit

tee)

P

roj

# H

abit

at C

on

dit

ion

D

esir

ed

Ou

tco

me

Tar

get

A

ud

ien

ce

Pro

po

sed

Act

ion

P

rio

rity

P

rove

n T

rack

R

eco

rd/M

od

el

Lev

el o

f F

inan

cial

C

om

mit

. C7

29

Sho

relin

e ha

rden

ing,

rip

aria

n ve

geta

tion

disp

lace

d by

law

n,

inva

sive

s, o

r ex

otic

s w

ith lo

w e

colo

gica

l va

lue,

ove

rwat

er

stru

ctur

es c

reat

ing

shar

p lig

ht c

ontr

ast,

wat

er q

ualit

y de

grad

ed b

y ef

fect

s of

land

scap

e p

ract

ices

Incr

ease

aw

aren

ess

that

th

e la

kesh

ore

is

also

a n

urse

ry fo

r ju

veni

le s

alm

on.

It’s

poss

ible

to

mak

e “h

ome

impr

ovem

ents

” th

at c

an b

enef

it bo

th p

rope

rty

owne

r an

d sa

lmon

. [pe

ople

pe

ts, a

nd p

lane

t]

Lake

shor

e pr

oper

ty

owne

rs

Pro

mot

e co

ncep

t of l

ivin

g w

ith th

e la

ke, i

nste

ad o

f jus

t on

it

thro

ugh

publ

ic m

essa

ging

. Fos

ter

idea

of s

harin

g th

e sh

orel

ine

with

oth

er s

peci

es th

at in

habi

t the

lake

shor

e.

Car

ry o

ut th

roug

h w

orks

hops

, lite

ratu

re, a

nd

deve

lopm

ent o

f edu

catio

n an

d m

arke

ting

cam

paig

ns

Hig

h La

kesi

de L

ivin

g W

orks

hop

S

erie

s; K

ing

Cou

nty

Lake

S

tew

ards

hip

Pro

gram

Var

iabl

e

C730

S

hore

line

hard

enin

g,

ripar

ian

vege

tatio

n di

spla

ced

by la

wn,

in

vasi

ves,

or

exot

ics

with

low

eco

logi

cal

valu

e, o

verw

ater

st

ruct

ures

cre

atin

g sh

arp

light

con

tras

t, w

ater

qua

lity

degr

aded

by

effe

cts

of la

ndsc

ape

pra

ctic

es

Red

uce

cond

ition

s fa

vore

d by

pr

edat

or s

peci

es;

prot

ect &

res

tore

w

ater

qua

lity.

Lake

shor

e pr

oper

ty

owne

rs

Offe

r la

kesh

ore

prop

erty

ow

ners

a s

erie

s of

wor

ksho

ps

on la

kesh

ore

livin

g: n

atur

al y

ard

care

; red

uctio

n of

law

n si

ze, s

hore

line

buffe

r pl

antin

g de

sign

/nox

ious

wee

d m

anag

emen

t; al

tern

ativ

es to

ver

tical

wal

l bul

khea

ds;

salm

on fr

iend

ly d

ock

desi

gn; a

quat

ic w

eed

man

agem

ent;

envi

ronm

enta

lly fr

iend

ly m

etho

ds o

f mai

ntai

ning

boa

ts,

dock

s, d

ecks

; por

ous

pavi

ng o

ptio

ns

Hig

h W

RIA

8/K

CD

La

kesi

de L

ivin

g La

kesh

ore

Pro

pert

y O

wne

r W

orks

hops

, S

eattl

e P

ublic

U

tiliti

es a

nd

Sno

hom

ish

Cou

nty

Cre

ek

Ste

war

dshi

p P

rogr

ams,

City

of

Issa

quah

’s

Cre

eksi

de

Livi

ng P

rogr

am,

Nat

ural

Yar

d C

are

Nei

ghbo

rhoo

ds

Med

ium

- H

igh


Cha

pter

10:

Com

preh

ensi

ve A

ctio

n-Li

st fo

r C

edar

F

ebru

ary

25, 2

005

P

age

79

Pro

j #

Hab

itat

Co

nd

itio

n

Des

ired

O

utc

om

e T

arg

et

Au

die

nce

P

rop

ose

d A

ctio

n

Pri

ori

ty

Pro

ven

Tra

ck

Rec

ord

/Mo

del

L

evel

of

Fin

anci

al

Co

mm

it.

C731

F

ores

ted

parc

els

thre

aten

ed b

y de

velo

pmen

t, (e

ven

thou

gh d

iffic

ult t

o bu

ild o

n); c

reek

m

outh

s de

grad

ed o

r un

reco

gniz

able

(c

ulve

rted

); r

ipar

ian

vege

tatio

n re

plac

ed

by in

vasi

ves

infe

sted

al

ong

shor

elin

e

Pro

tect

and

/or

rest

ore

fore

st

land

, crit

ical

are

as

such

as

wet

land

s an

d sh

allo

w w

ater

re

arin

g ha

bita

t. P

rom

ote

wat

ersh

ed h

ealth

th

roug

h gr

assr

oots

m

essa

ging

.

Com

mun

ity,

but e

spec

ially

la

kesh

ore

prop

erty

ow

ners

.

Iden

tify

and

enco

urag

e sh

orel

ine

neig

hbor

hood

and

co

mm

unity

ste

war

dshi

p as

soci

atio

ns.

Use

to fo

ster

the

ethi

c of

vol

unta

ry s

tew

ards

hip,

set

exa

mpl

es fo

r ot

her

neig

hbor

s to

follo

w, e

nlis

t com

mun

ity s

uppo

rt to

acq

uire

an

d re

stor

e ha

bita

t, an

d to

bui

ld a

brid

ge b

etw

een

prop

erty

ow

ners

, age

ncie

s, a

nd lo

cal g

over

nmen

ts.

In

crea

se p

oten

tial f

or m

edia

cov

erag

e w

hen

effo

rts

initi

ated

at c

omm

unity

leve

l.

Hig

h La

ke F

ores

t P

ark

Ste

war

dshi

p F

ound

atio

n,

Sav

e La

ke

Sam

mam

ish,

D

enn

y C

reek

N

eigh

borh

ood

Ass

ocia

tion

Low

C732

R

ipar

ian

vege

tatio

n di

spla

ced

by la

wn,

in

vasi

ves,

or

exot

ics;

w

ater

qua

lity

com

prom

ised

by

gard

en c

hem

ical

s,

met

als,

sed

imen

t; el

evat

ed w

ater

te

mpe

ratu

res

due

to

incr

ease

d w

ater

use

at

tim

es w

hen

flow

s lo

wes

t.

Pro

tect

and

im

prov

e re

arin

g

and

mig

rato

ry

habi

tat;

prot

ect

and

rest

ore

wat

er

qual

ity

Lake

shor

e pr

oper

ty

owne

rs,

gene

ral p

ublic

Upd

ate

whe

re n

eces

sary

sal

mon

-frie

ndly

edu

catio

nal

mat

eria

ls s

uch

as S

alm

on F

riend

ly G

arde

ning

Pra

ctic

es,

Goi

ng N

ativ

e, W

ater

shed

Wal

tz a

nd S

amm

amis

h S

win

g bo

okle

ts. P

rint a

nd d

istr

ibut

e to

the

follo

win

g pr

iorit

ized

au

dien

ces:

1)la

kesh

ore

prop

erty

ow

ners

2)

Pub

lic p

lace

s su

ch a

s lib

rarie

s, c

ity h

alls

, com

mun

ity c

ente

rs a

nd

whe

re p

erm

itted

, at h

ome

impr

ovem

ent c

ente

rs a

nd o

ther

m

ajor

ret

ail e

stab

lishm

ents

.

Med

ium

-

Hig

h Y

es

Low

-M

ediu

m

C733

R

ipar

ian

vege

tatio

n di

spla

ced

by la

wn,

in

vasi

ves,

or

exot

ics;

w

ater

qua

lity

com

prom

ised

by

gard

en c

hem

ical

s,

met

als,

sed

imen

t.;

elev

ated

wat

er

tem

pera

ture

s du

e to

in

crea

sed

wat

er u

se

at ti

mes

whe

n flo

ws

low

est.

Pro

tect

& r

esto

re

shor

elin

e bu

ffer

plan

tings

to

prov

ide

sour

ce o

f fo

od &

she

lter;

pr

otec

t& r

esto

re

wat

er q

ualit

y,

mai

ntai

n ba

seflo

ws

of

feed

er s

trea

ms

in

orde

r to

pro

vide

so

urce

of c

oole

r w

ater

Lake

shor

e pr

oper

ty

owne

rs

Mod

ify m

ore

for

“lake

shor

e liv

ing”

the

exis

ting

“Str

eam

side

Liv

ing

Wel

com

e W

agon

” pr

ogra

m in

whi

ch

resi

dent

s w

elco

me

new

hom

eow

ners

to th

e ne

ighb

orho

od a

nd p

rovi

de in

form

atio

n co

ncer

ning

“s

alm

on fr

iend

ly”

yard

car

e, la

kesh

ore

plan

ting

tips,

w

ater

-wis

e ga

rden

ing.

Med

ium

W

ater

Ten

ders

S

trea

msi

de

Livi

ng

Wel

com

e W

agon

Low

- M

ediu

m

C734

S

olid

ove

rwat

er

surf

aces

that

cre

ate

shar

p lig

ht c

ontr

ast

and

dark

sha

dow

s,

Red

uce

seve

rity

of p

reda

tion

on

juve

nile

s

Lake

shor

e pr

oper

ty

owne

rs

Exp

lain

abo

ut m

utua

l val

ue o

f mes

h do

cks,

sm

alle

r pi

ling

size

s, a

nd c

omm

unity

doc

ks to

sal

mon

and

pro

pert

y ow

ners

: R

educ

ed p

reda

tion

for

fish;

red

uced

m

aint

enan

ce fo

r ho

meo

wne

rs, o

ppor

tuni

ty to

wat

ch s

mal

l

Hig

h

Med

ium


Cha

pter

10:

Com

preh

ensi

ve A

ctio

n-Li

st fo

r C

edar

F

ebru

ary

25, 2

005

P

age

80

Pro

j #

Hab

itat

Co

nd

itio

n

Des

ired

O

utc

om

e T

arg

et

Au

die

nce

P

rop

ose

d A

ctio

n

Pri

ori

ty

Pro

ven

Tra

ck

Rec

ord

/Mo

del

L

evel

of

Fin

anci

al

Co

mm

it.

cond

ition

s fa

vore

d by

pre

dato

rs.

fish

swim

min

g un

der

the

dock

, and

arc

hite

ctur

al in

tere

st

prov

ided

by

new

sal

mon

-frie

ndly

ele

vate

d do

ck b

ridge

s.

Out

reac

h co

uld

be c

arrie

d ou

t, fo

r ex

ampl

e, b

y cr

eatin

g a

boat

ow

ner

educ

atio

n ca

mpa

ign.

Mai

lings

cou

ld b

e se

nt

with

boa

t reg

istr

atio

n ta

b re

new

al o

r w

ith p

rope

rty

tax

notic

e fo

r sh

orel

ine

prop

erty

ow

ners

; by

liter

atur

e at

m

arin

e, s

port

ing

good

s an

d ha

rdw

are

stor

es, a

t boa

t sh

ows;

and

thro

ugh

wor

ksho

ps to

hom

eow

ners

and

m

arin

e co

nstr

uctio

n in

dust

ry.

Coo

rdin

ate

outr

each

th

roug

h ap

prop

riate

lice

nsin

g ag

enci

es.

C735

S

harp

ligh

t con

tras

t an

d da

rk h

idin

g sp

ots

crea

ted

by

over

wat

er s

truc

ture

s,

cond

ition

s fa

vore

d by

pre

dato

rs

Red

uce

seve

rity

of p

reda

tion

on

juve

nile

s by

re

duci

ng n

umbe

r of

doc

ks.

Lake

shor

e pr

oper

ty

owne

rs

Offe

r fin

anci

al in

cent

ives

for

com

mun

ity d

ocks

in te

rms

of

redu

ced:

per

mit

fees

, loa

n fe

es/p

erce

ntag

e ra

tes,

taxe

s an

d pe

rmitt

ing

time,

in a

dditi

on to

red

uced

con

stru

ctio

n co

sts

Hig

h

low

C736

S

teep

sho

relin

e gr

adie

nt w

ith c

oars

e ag

greg

ate

caus

ed b

y w

ave

actio

n on

ve

rtic

al w

all

bulk

head

s

Cre

ate

sand

y,

shal

low

wat

er

habi

tat n

eede

d by

ju

veni

les.

Lake

shor

e pr

oper

ty

owne

rs

Util

ize

nich

e m

arke

ting

to p

rom

ote

a “B

uild

a B

each

” ca

mpa

ign.

Cla

rify

how

har

dene

d sh

orel

ines

pre

vent

the

deve

lopm

ent o

f sha

llow

, san

dy b

each

es a

nd h

ow

alte

rnat

ive

trea

tmen

ts c

an p

rovi

de th

ese

amen

ities

. Of

bene

fit to

sal

mon

and

to h

omeo

wne

rs d

esiri

ng m

ore

easi

ly a

cces

sibl

e sh

allo

w b

each

and

aes

thet

ics

of a

cov

e.

Wor

k w

ith m

edia

(in

clud

ing

desi

gn a

nd li

fest

yle

mag

azin

es)

and

real

est

ate

com

mun

ity (

artic

les

in r

eal

esta

te s

ectio

ns o

f pap

ers)

as

wel

l as

cons

truc

tion,

and

de

sign

indu

stry

pro

fess

iona

ls

Hig

h P

ro B

ono

adve

rtis

ing

cam

paig

n de

velo

pmen

t –

The

Coa

litio

n fo

r D

rug

Fre

e A

mer

ica

ad

cam

paig

n).

Ber

t the

S

alm

on a

ds

Var

iabl

e,

but l

ow

able

to g

et

Pro

Bon

o as

sist

ance

.

C737

La

ck o

f she

lter

prov

ided

by

larg

e an

d sm

all w

oody

de

bris

due

to la

ck o

f sh

orel

ine

vege

tatio

n;

stee

p dr

opof

fs fr

om

shor

elin

e ha

rden

ing

Red

uce

cond

ition

s fa

vore

d by

pr

edat

or s

peci

es.;

incr

ease

sh

orel

ine

buffe

r ve

geta

tion

and

sour

ces

for

larg

e an

d sm

all w

oody

de

bris

Lake

shor

e pr

oper

ty

owne

rs

Alte

rnat

ive

mar

ketin

g ca

mpa

ign:

wor

k w

ith a

dver

tisin

g in

dust

ry a

nd m

edia

. D

o a

play

on

“Chi

ld H

aven

” pr

omot

ion.

Fry

Hav

en?

Con

tras

t pic

ture

of a

san

dy

shal

low

sho

relin

e co

ntai

ning

woo

dy d

ebris

hid

ing

Chi

nook

juve

nile

s w

ith th

at o

f a d

eep

grav

elly

sho

relin

e w

ith e

vil l

ooki

ng p

reda

tor

spec

ies

lurk

ing,

gob

blin

g up

yo

ung

Chi

nook

. [A

“C

hino

ok n

eed

safe

pla

ces

too”

idea

].

Pos

sibl

y gr

aphi

cs in

sty

le o

f Fin

ding

Nem

o.

Cre

ate

a m

arke

ting

nich

e w

ith la

ndsc

ape

rela

ted

indu

strie

s to

info

rm p

rope

rty

owne

rs a

bout

feed

ing

requ

irem

ents

of o

ut-m

igra

ting

salm

on o

ff th

eir

beac

h.

Val

idat

e ne

ed fo

r na

tive

vege

tatio

n al

ong

the

shor

elin

e in

Hig

h V

ario

us B

ert

the

Sal

mon

Ad

cam

paig

ns


Cha

pter

10:

Com

preh

ensi

ve A

ctio

n-Li

st fo

r C

edar

F

ebru

ary

25, 2

005

P

age

81

Pro

j #

Hab

itat

Co

nd

itio

n

Des

ired

O

utc

om

e T

arg

et

Au

die

nce

P

rop

ose

d A

ctio

n

Pri

ori

ty

Pro

ven

Tra

ck

Rec

ord

/Mo

del

L

evel

of

Fin

anci

al

Co

mm

it.

how

it p

rovi

des

food

sou

rce

for

fish

and

othe

r w

ildlif

e.

Per

haps

an

“Are

you

sta

rvin

g yo

ur n

eigh

borh

ood

salm

on?”

cam

paig

n th

at a

ddre

sses

impa

cts

of d

enud

ing

shor

elin

es o

f woo

dy a

nd e

mer

gent

veg

etat

ion

coul

d be

de

velo

ped.

Or

may

be fl

ip to

mor

e po

sitiv

e “H

ave

you

fed

your

nei

ghbo

rhoo

d sa

lmon

toda

y?”

Hei

ghte

n aw

aren

ess

that

it is

the

youn

g ju

veni

le fi

sh th

at

are

at r

isk.

(H

uman

s ar

e of

ten

mor

e re

cept

ive

to s

avin

g ch

ildre

n). P

ossi

bly

do a

pla

y on

Sav

e th

e C

hild

ren

char

ity

cam

paig

n, s

how

ing

stre

ssed

con

ditio

ns fo

r ju

veni

le

Chi

nook

tryi

ng to

rea

r an

d m

igra

te th

roug

h la

ke.

C738

La

ck o

f app

ropr

iate

sh

orel

ine

vege

tatio

n,

shor

elin

e ha

rden

ing

by v

ertic

al w

all

bulk

head

s an

d rip

ra

p w

alls

; doc

ks th

at

crea

te s

tark

ligh

t co

ntra

st a

nd h

idin

g sp

ots

for

pred

ator

s

Red

uce

cond

ition

s fa

vore

d by

pr

edat

or s

peci

es

by “

softe

ning

” sh

orel

ine;

in

crea

se

shor

elin

e bu

ffer

vege

tatio

n an

d so

urce

s fo

r la

rge

and

smal

l woo

dy

debr

is, r

epla

ce

the

man

y do

cks

with

mor

e sa

lmon

fr

iend

ly d

esig

ns

Lake

shor

e pr

oper

ty

owne

rs

Dem

onst

ratio

n P

roje

ct. L

ocat

e pr

oper

ty o

wne

r in

pub

licly

ac

cess

ible

(or

vie

wab

le)

area

will

ing

to r

emov

e bu

lkhe

ad,

or s

hore

line

arm

orin

g an

d re

plac

e it

with

mor

e ec

olog

ical

ly fr

iend

ly d

esig

n. S

imila

rly, r

enov

ate

exis

ting

dock

with

mor

e sa

lmon

-frie

ndly

des

ign.

Pub

liciz

e ef

fort

s th

roug

h va

rious

mea

ns. D

emon

stra

tion

proj

ect s

houl

d co

ntai

n el

emen

ts th

at c

an b

e do

ne b

y av

erag

e sh

orel

ine

prop

erty

ow

ner.

Pro

vide

info

rmat

ion

on c

osts

and

ad

vant

ages

of a

ltern

ate

trea

tmen

ts.

Med

ium

–

Hig

h R

edm

ond

Riv

er

Wal

k, J

uani

ta

Bea

ch, C

lass

ic

Nur

sery

, Lar

k F

ores

t Par

k S

tew

ards

hip

proj

ects

Med

ium

C739

C

oars

e su

bstr

ate,

st

eep

slop

e, d

ark

hidi

ng s

pots

for

pred

ator

s ca

used

by

bulk

head

s an

d so

lid

surf

ace

dock

s.

Red

uce

cond

ition

s fa

vore

d by

pr

edat

or s

peci

es;

incr

ease

sh

orel

ine

buffe

r ve

geta

tion

and

sour

ces

for

larg

e an

d sm

all w

oody

de

bris

Lake

shor

e pr

oper

ty

owne

rs,

gene

ral p

ublic

Doc

umen

t vid

eo p

rogr

ess

on a

ran

ge o

f res

tora

tion

proj

ects

from

pla

nnin

g to

pos

t-co

nstr

uctio

n. A

ir on

go

vern

men

t cab

le c

hann

els,

in s

hore

line

prop

erty

ow

ner

clas

ses

and

for

libra

ries,

sch

ools

, com

mun

ities

gro

ups.

Med

ium

Var

iabl

e

C740

C

oars

e su

bstr

ate,

st

eep

slop

e, d

ark

hidi

ng s

pots

for

Ove

rcom

e re

sist

ance

of

shor

elin

e pr

oper

ty

Lake

shor

e pr

oper

ty

owne

rs,

Com

bine

rec

reat

ion

and

educ

atio

n. O

rgan

ize

a B

ulkh

ead

Alte

rnat

ives

and

Sal

mon

Frie

ndly

Doc

k D

esig

n to

ur to

se

e go

od e

xam

ples

of d

esig

n on

a r

esid

entia

l sca

le.

Low

K

ing

Cou

nty

and

Peo

ple

for

Pug

et S

ound

Var

iabl

e


Cha

pter

10:

Com

preh

ensi

ve A

ctio

n-Li

st fo

r C

edar

F

ebru

ary

25, 2

005

P

age

82

Pro

j #

Hab

itat

Co

nd

itio

n

Des

ired

O

utc

om

e T

arg

et

Au

die

nce

P

rop

ose

d A

ctio

n

Pri

ori

ty

Pro

ven

Tra

ck

Rec

ord

/Mo

del

L

evel

of

Fin

anci

al

Co

mm

it.

pred

ator

s ca

used

by

bulk

head

s an

d so

lid

surf

ace

dock

s.

owne

rs to

mak

e su

ch d

rast

ic

chan

ges

to th

eir

shor

elin

es b

y of

ferin

g lo

cal

exam

ples

of

alte

rnat

ive

trea

tmen

ts.

Ulti

mat

e go

al is

to

redu

ce c

ondi

tions

fa

vore

d by

pr

edat

or s

peci

es

gene

ral p

ublic

O

rgan

ize

as b

oat t

our

so p

rope

rtie

s ca

n be

vie

wed

from

w

ater

(le

ss in

vasi

ve to

pro

pert

y ow

ner)

. A

ltern

ativ

ely,

cre

ate

a se

lf-gu

ided

wat

er to

ur (

mos

t sh

orel

ine

prop

erty

ow

ners

hav

e th

eir

own

boat

s) w

ith

GP

S c

oord

inat

es to

hel

p lo

cate

exa

mpl

e pr

oper

ty.

shor

elin

e ho

meo

wne

r w

ork

shop

s (p

ilot p

rogr

ams)

C741

S

hore

line

hard

enin

g,

ripar

ian

vege

tatio

n di

spla

ced

by la

wn,

iv

asiv

es, o

r ex

otic

s w

ith lo

w e

colo

gica

l va

lue,

ove

rwat

er

stru

ctur

es c

reat

ing

shar

p lig

ht c

ontr

ast,

wat

er q

ualit

y de

grad

ed b

y ef

fect

s of

land

scap

e p

ract

ices

Pro

tect

and

im

prov

e w

ater

qu

ality

; hab

itat

qual

ity

- o

r-

Pro

tect

& r

esto

re

ripar

ian

vege

tatio

n to

pr

ovid

e te

rres

tria

l fo

od s

ourc

e an

d sh

elte

r; p

rote

ct&

re

stor

e w

ater

qu

ality

, mai

ntai

n in

stre

am fl

ows

upst

ream

to

prov

ide

sour

ce o

f co

oler

wat

er

Land

scap

e C

on

trac

tors

O

ffer

prof

essi

onal

wor

ksho

ps to

land

scap

e de

sign

ers

&

cont

ract

ors

on e

nviro

nmen

tally

-frie

ndly

lake

shor

e la

ndsc

apin

g. I

nclu

de to

pics

suc

h as

sho

relin

e bu

ffer

func

tion

and

desi

gn, n

ativ

e pl

ant s

elec

tion,

inst

alla

tion

tech

niqu

es, u

se o

f com

post

to b

uild

hea

lthy

soils

, and

no

xiou

s w

eed

cont

rol.

Det

erm

ine

need

for

trai

ning

for

non-

Eng

lish

spea

king

par

ticip

ants

Med

ium

–

Hig

h W

ashi

ngto

n A

ssoc

of

Land

scap

e P

rofe

ssio

nals

(W

ALP

) T

rain

ings

by

Kin

g C

ount

y Lo

cal

Haz

ardo

us

Was

te

Man

agem

ent

Pro

gram

Low

C742

R

ipar

ian

vege

tatio

n di

spla

ced

by la

wn.

W

ater

qua

lity

com

prom

ised

by

gard

en c

hem

ical

s,

met

als,

sed

imen

t.

Incr

ease

sh

orel

ine

plan

ting;

red

uce

law

n si

ze to

at

leas

t hav

e bu

ffer

betw

een

law

n an

d sh

ore.

Lake

shor

e pr

oper

ty

owne

rs

Wor

k w

ith la

ndsc

ape,

des

ign,

and

rea

l est

ate

indu

strie

s to

sel

l ben

efit

of “

priv

acy”

to h

omeo

wne

rs.

With

re

stor

atio

n of

sho

relin

e bu

ffer

plan

ting

hom

eow

ners

can

in

crea

se p

rivac

y w

ithou

t sac

rific

ing

view

s. P

rom

ote

idea

of

“fr

amed

vie

ws”

as

a m

ore

soph

istic

ated

land

scap

e ae

sthe

tic.

Med

ium

-

Hig

h 19

98 L

ake

Sam

mam

ish

Sho

relin

e P

rop

owne

rs

wor

ksho

p P

ilot

Pro

gram

C743

La

ck o

f sho

relin

e bu

ffer

vege

tatio

n,

incr

ease

d w

ater

use

w

hen

leve

ls lo

wes

t;

Incr

ease

nat

ive

vege

tatio

n an

d so

urce

of s

helte

r an

d fo

od fo

r fis

h;

Lake

shor

e pr

oper

ty

owne

rs ,

Com

mun

ity

Incr

ease

num

ber

of n

ativ

e pl

ant s

alva

ges

whe

re

land

owne

rs c

an ta

ke p

lant

s ba

ck to

thei

r ya

rds.

Pub

liciz

e op

port

unity

to d

rop

off u

nwan

ted

nativ

e pl

ants

at v

ario

us

park

s su

rrou

ndin

g th

e la

ke.

Low

–

Lake

W

ashi

ngt

on

Kin

g C

ount

y N

ativ

e P

lant

S

alva

ge

Pro

gram


Cha

pter

10:

Com

preh

ensi

ve A

ctio

n-Li

st fo

r C

edar

F

ebru

ary

25, 2

005

P

age

83

Pro

j #

Hab

itat

Co

nd

itio

n

Des

ired

O

utc

om

e T

arg

et

Au

die

nce

P

rop

ose

d A

ctio

n

Pri

ori

ty

Pro

ven

Tra

ck

Rec

ord

/Mo

del

L

evel

of

Fin

anci

al

Co

mm

it.

incr

ease

d pe

rcei

ved

need

for

pest

icid

es

redu

ce e

rosi

on

and

need

for

supp

lem

enta

l irr

igat

ion

(onc

e es

tabl

ishe

d)

Low

-M

ed

Sam

ma

mis

h

C744

La

ck o

f app

ropr

iate

sh

orel

ine

vege

tatio

n In

crea

se

shor

elin

e ve

geta

tion

and

redu

ce n

on-n

ativ

e ve

geta

tion

&

spre

ad o

f in

vasi

ves

Lake

shor

e pr

oper

ty

owne

rs

Red

uce

perm

it fe

es (

whe

re a

pplic

able

) fo

r sh

orel

ine

rest

orat

ion,

rem

oval

& r

epla

cem

ent o

f non

-nat

ive

vege

tatio

n

Med

ium

Low

C745

W

ater

qua

lity

degr

aded

by

toxi

cs,

pest

icid

es, i

ncre

ased

nu

trie

nt lo

ads,

se

dim

ent f

rom

co

nstr

uctio

n si

tes;

lo

ss o

f rip

aria

n ve

geta

tion

Pro

tect

and

im

prov

e w

ater

qu

ality

Gen

eral

P

ublic

P

ublic

ize

emer

genc

y ca

ll nu

mbe

rs fo

r pu

blic

to r

epor

t w

ater

qua

lity

prob

lem

s, w

ater

div

ersi

on fr

om la

ke fo

r irr

igat

ion,

, no

n-pe

rmitt

ed v

eget

atio

n cl

earin

g, o

r tr

ee

over

spra

y (p

estic

ide)

rel

ated

inci

dent

s.

Hig

h K

ing

Cou

nty

Wat

er &

Lan

d D

ivis

ion,

S

eattl

e P

ublic

U

tiliti

es

Hot

lines

Low

C746

R

educ

ed fo

rest

and

ca

nopy

cov

er;

incr

ease

d im

perv

ious

are

as,

decr

ease

d in

filtr

atio

n; m

ore

flash

ines

s of

floo

ds

due

to in

tens

ity o

f ru

noff

Pro

tect

and

im

prov

e w

ater

qu

ality

; red

uce

quan

tity

of w

ater

en

terin

g la

ke:

durin

g flo

od

cond

ition

s ca

n m

ix w

ith s

anita

ry

sew

er fl

ows

and

ente

r la

ke.

Gen

eral

pu

blic

, but

pr

oper

ty

owne

rs in

pa

rtic

ular

Incr

ease

out

reac

h co

ncer

ning

the

bene

fits

of tr

ees

and

basi

n-w

ide

fore

st c

over

age

to p

rote

ct w

ater

qua

lity.

In

clud

e su

ch a

ctio

ns a

s si

gnifi

cant

tree

ord

inan

ce a

nd

info

rmat

ion

that

link

s ca

nopy

cov

er to

sto

rm w

ater

issu

es.

Pro

vide

cla

rific

atio

n on

haz

ardo

us tr

ee is

sues

. Offe

r se

edlin

gs to

rep

lant

afte

r ha

zard

tree

s ar

e re

mov

ed.

Coo

rdin

ate

with

com

mer

cial

nur

serie

s to

exp

and

outr

each

abo

ut b

enef

its o

f tre

es to

sal

mon

.

Med

ium

- H

igh

Sam

mam

ish

ReL

eaf;

Mou

ntai

ns-t

o-S

ound

G

reen

way

; City

tr

ee

ordi

nanc

es,

Kin

g C

ount

y F

ores

try

Pro

gram

Low

C747

E

leva

ted

lake

te

mpe

ratu

res,

lack

of

cool

wat

er s

ourc

es

from

feed

er s

trea

ms,

in

suffi

cien

t flo

ws

in

feed

er s

trea

ms

to

prov

ide

sour

ce o

f co

oler

wat

er, l

ack

of

grou

nd w

ater

re

char

ge, w

ater

Pro

tect

fore

st

cove

r, r

educ

e pa

ving

an

d im

perv

ious

are

as,

incr

ease

in

filtr

atio

n an

d co

nditi

ons

that

m

imic

nat

ural

hy

drol

ogy,

pro

tect

w

ater

qua

lity

Des

ign,

en

gine

erin

g,

and

co

nstr

uctio

n in

dust

ries

Pro

vide

edu

catio

n to

arc

hite

cts,

land

scap

e ar

chite

cts,

en

gine

ers,

and

dev

elop

ers

on s

usta

inab

le b

uild

ing/

desi

gn

prac

tices

. W

ork

with

pro

fess

iona

l ass

ocia

tions

to

high

light

bui

ldin

g pr

actic

es th

at m

aint

ain

wat

ersh

ed

heal

th, i

mpo

rtan

ce o

f mai

ntai

ning

can

opy

cove

r an

d lim

iting

impe

rvio

us s

urfa

ces.

P

rovi

de in

cent

ives

to

build

ers

that

dem

onst

rate

a u

se e

colo

gica

lly s

ensi

tive

desi

gns

and/

or te

chni

ques

. P

rovi

de p

rofe

ssio

nal w

orks

hop

and

tour

s fo

cusi

ng o

n

Med

ium

-

Hig

h W

ALP

T

rain

ings

by

Kin

g C

ount

y Lo

cal

Haz

ardo

us

Was

te

Man

agem

ent

Pro

gram

. S

tone

way

Var

iabl

e


Cha

pter

10:

Com

preh

ensi

ve A

ctio

n-Li

st fo

r C

edar

F

ebru

ary

25, 2

005

P

age

84

Pro

j #

Hab

itat

Co

nd

itio

n

Des

ired

O

utc

om

e T

arg

et

Au

die

nce

P

rop

ose

d A

ctio

n

Pri

ori

ty

Pro

ven

Tra

ck

Rec

ord

/Mo

del

L

evel

of

Fin

anci

al

Co

mm

it.

qual

ity, h

abita

t qu

ality

su

stai

nabl

e bu

ildin

g/de

sign

pra

ctic

es to

arc

hite

cts,

la

ndsc

ape

arch

itect

s, e

ngin

eers

and

dev

elop

ers.

Bui

ld

part

ners

hips

with

pro

fess

iona

l ass

ocia

tions

to h

ighl

ight

th

e be

nefit

s of

pra

ctic

es th

at m

aint

ain

wat

ersh

ed h

ealth

. P

rom

ote

thro

ugh

desi

gn c

ompe

titio

ns a

nd m

edia

co

vera

ge th

e us

e of

“ra

in g

arde

ns”

and

othe

r lo

w im

pact

de

velo

pmen

t pra

ctic

es th

at m

imic

nat

ural

hyd

rolo

gy.

Com

bine

a h

ome

& g

arde

n to

ur o

r “S

tree

t of D

ream

s”

type

eve

nt fe

atur

ing

thes

e la

ndsc

ape

and

engi

neer

ing

trea

tmen

ts.

Con

cret

e C

ounc

il fo

r S

usta

inab

le

Dev

elop

men

t ou

trea

ch o

n

perv

ious

pa

vem

ent.

Por

t Bla

kely

C

omm

uniti

es,

Issa

quah

pa

rtne

rshi

ps,

Bui

lt G

reen

, S

usta

inab

le

Sea

ttle,

LE

ED

S

C748

R

educ

ed fo

rest

co

ver,

incr

ease

d im

perv

ious

are

a,

decr

ease

d in

filtr

atio

n an

d gr

ound

wat

er

rech

arge

, wat

er

qual

ity d

egra

ded

by

runo

ff

Pro

tect

and

im

prov

e w

ater

qu

ality

and

qu

antit

y to

mor

e cl

osel

y m

imic

na

tura

l hyd

rolo

gy

Dev

elop

ers,

A

rchi

tect

s,

Eng

inee

rs

Bui

ldin

g P

rofe

ssio

nals

Use

rec

ogni

tion

as a

mea

ns to

enc

oura

ge m

ore

salm

on

sust

aina

ble

desi

gns

and

cons

truc

tion.

Coo

rdin

ate

with

pr

ofes

sion

al a

ssoc

iatio

n aw

ards

, in

addi

tion

to p

opul

ar

mag

azin

e m

erit

awar

ds. C

ontin

ue to

rec

ogni

ze

busi

ness

es th

at c

arry

out

pro

cedu

res

or u

se p

rodu

cts

that

pro

tect

wat

ersh

ed h

ealth

. P

rom

ote

thro

ugh

desi

gn c

ompe

titio

ns a

nd m

edia

co

vera

ge th

e us

e of

“ra

in g

arde

ns”

and

othe

r lo

w im

pact

de

velo

pmen

t pra

ctic

es th

at m

imic

nat

ural

hyd

rolo

gy.

Com

bine

a h

ome/

gard

en to

ur o

r “S

tree

t of D

ream

s” ty

pe

even

t fea

turin

g th

ese

land

scap

e /e

ngin

eerin

g tr

eatm

ents

Med

ium

A

IA, A

SLA

, S

unse

t M

agaz

ine,

and

S

eattl

e T

imes

H

ome

and

Gar

den

awar

ds, K

ing

Cou

nty

Env

iro

Sta

rs.

Low

C749

W

ater

qua

lity

degr

aded

by

met

als,

to

xins

, pes

ticid

es,

and

nutr

ient

ov

erlo

ads

Pro

tect

and

im

prov

e w

ater

qu

ality

Gen

eral

P

ublic

C

reat

e a

prog

ram

that

add

ress

es im

pact

of c

ar

mai

nten

ance

and

offe

rs a

ltern

ativ

es th

at h

elp

prot

ect

wat

ersh

ed h

ealth

and

wat

er q

ualit

y.

Mor

e ac

tivel

y di

strib

ute

– po

ster

ser

ies

deve

lope

d by

m

ulti-

juris

dict

iona

l Wat

er Q

ualit

y C

onso

rtiu

m.

Ser

ies

depi

ct w

ater

qua

lity

impl

icat

ions

of e

very

day

activ

ities

su

ch a

s ca

r w

ashi

ng, i

gnor

ing

car

mai

nten

ance

, pet

w

aste

s.

Wor

k w

ith a

uto

part

s re

taile

rs a

nd g

as s

tatio

ns to

in

crea

se p

oten

tial f

or c

olle

ctio

n of

use

d m

otor

oi

l/tra

nsm

issi

on fl

uids

.

Med

ium

K

ing

Cou

nty

Loca

l H

azar

dous

W

aste

Mgm

t P

rogr

am

Wat

er Q

ualit

y C

onso

rtiu

m,

Bus

ines

ses

for

Cle

an W

ater

varia

ble


Cha

pter

10:

Com

preh

ensi

ve A

ctio

n-Li

st fo

r C

edar

F

ebru

ary

25, 2

005

P

age

85

Pro

j #

Hab

itat

Co

nd

itio

n

Des

ired

O

utc

om

e T

arg

et

Au

die

nce

P

rop

ose

d A

ctio

n

Pri

ori

ty

Pro

ven

Tra

ck

Rec

ord

/Mo

del

L

evel

of

Fin

anci

al

Co

mm

it.

Mak

e ou

trea

ch m

ater

ials

ava

ilabl

e to

non

-Eng

lish

spea

kers

. C7

50

Wat

er Q

ualit

y de

grad

ed b

y to

xics

an

d m

etal

fine

s

Pro

tect

and

re

stor

e w

ater

qu

ality

Gen

eral

P

ublic

B

uild

par

tner

ship

s an

d se

ek o

utre

ach

oppo

rtun

ities

with

co

mm

ute

trip

red

uctio

n pr

ogra

ms

to c

onve

y th

e im

pact

s of

aut

omob

iles

on w

ater

qua

lity

and

salm

on h

abita

t.

Enc

oura

ge a

ltern

ativ

e tr

ansp

orta

tion

choi

ces.

Med

ium

C

omm

ute

Trip

R

educ

tion

Pro

gram

s

Low

-

Med

ium

C751

W

ater

Qua

lity

degr

aded

by

toxi

cs

and

met

al fi

nes

degr

aded

by

met

als

and

toxi

ns

Pro

tect

and

re

stor

e w

ater

qu

ality

Gen

eral

P

ublic

, sc

hool

s/no

n-pr

ofits

and

C

harit

y gr

oups

– a

nd

busi

ness

that

of

fer

to h

ost a

ca

rwas

h.

Coo

rdin

ate

with

loca

l bus

ines

s co

mm

unity

to e

ncou

rage

th

e us

e of

com

mer

cial

car

was

hes

over

was

hing

at h

ome

on s

tree

t or

in p

arki

ng lo

ts. E

ncou

rage

alte

rnat

ives

to

char

ity c

ash

was

hes

via

com

mer

cial

car

was

h co

upon

bo

oks

or e

xten

d ca

r w

ash

kits

thro

ugho

ut e

ntire

w

ater

shed

. Mak

e re

quire

men

t tha

t all

char

ity c

ar w

ashe

s us

e co

upon

s or

car

was

h st

orm

dra

in k

it. D

istr

ibut

e “a

ltern

ativ

e co

mm

unity

fund

rais

ing

idea

” br

ochu

re to

vo

lunt

eer

fund

rais

ers.

Med

ium

-

Hig

h Y

es, v

ario

us

citie

s’ c

ar w

ash

kit p

rogr

ams.

P

uget

Sou

nd

Car

was

h A

ssoc

iatio

n

Low

C752

W

ater

qua

lity

degr

aded

by

met

als

and

toxi

ns

Pro

tect

and

re

stor

e w

ater

qu

ality

Bus

ines

ses,

pr

oper

ty

man

agem

ent

com

pani

es,

hom

eow

ners

as

soci

atio

ns.

Edu

cate

and

sup

port

ret

ail b

usin

ess

and

hom

eow

ner

asso

ciat

ions

on

stor

mw

ater

bes

t man

agem

ent p

ract

ices

sp

ecifi

cally

rel

ated

to p

arki

ng lo

t cle

anin

g, s

torm

dra

in

mai

nten

ance

, and

boa

t cle

anin

g.

Med

ium

O

ngoi

ng

prog

ram

s by

va

rious

ju

risdi

ctio

ns

with

in W

IRA

, e.

g. Is

saqu

ah,

Red

mon

d

Low

C753

R

educ

ed b

asef

low

s fr

om s

trea

ms

that

fe

ed in

to la

ke a

nd

subs

eque

nt e

leva

ted

wat

er te

mpe

ratu

res

in la

ke

Pro

tect

and

re

stor

e so

urce

s of

co

ol w

ater

Hig

h en

d w

ater

use

rs

and

gene

ral

publ

ic

Ext

end

avai

labi

lity

of w

ater

con

serv

atio

n in

cent

ive

prog

ram

s su

ch a

s re

bate

s fo

r ef

ficie

nt to

ilets

, app

lianc

es,

soak

er h

oses

, fre

e in

door

con

serv

atio

n ki

ts, o

r fr

ee

land

scap

e irr

igat

ion

audi

ts to

dec

reas

e ho

useh

old

and

com

mer

cial

wat

er c

onsu

mpt

ion.

Hig

h S

mar

t &

Hea

lthy

Land

scap

es,

Wat

er C

ents

, an

d ot

her

utili

ty

ince

ntiv

e pr

ogra

ms

Low


Documents

CITY COUNCIL Monday June 20, 2011 MEETING … - 2011-06-20 Council Meeting.pdfDan Grausz CITY MANAGER ... employee Lindell. He believes the City has stalled the lawsuit over the past